ED 046 167

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPOIS AGENCY

PUB DATENOTE

ELRE PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDE4TIFIERS

DOCUMENT PFSUME

EC 011 2E1

restaino, Lillian c. /.; Socher, Penny A.Curriculum Development for Young DP1f. Childre withSpecific Learning Disabilities (Ages 4-9.New York State Education Dept., Albany. Div. forHandicapped Children.Bureau of Elementary and secondary Education('CHEW /OF) , Washington, P.C.701u0p.: Project CREED a, September 10r9 to August 1070

FADS Price ME-$0.65 FC-$6.5P*Aurally Handicarned, *Curriculum Development,Curriculum Evaluation, Early Childhood, ExceptionalChild "ducation, *Exceptional Child Pf?search,*Learning Disabilities, Program Development,*Remedial ProgramsElementary and Secondary Education Act Title 7, YewYork

ABSTRACTThe cgrn 4 Project, the fourth of a continuing

series, had as its objective the development of activities andmaterials for the remediation of deficits found in deaf children(ages 4-6 years) with special learning problems and who had beenadministered the battery of tests developed in CREED .7, designed toassess five critical arets. A sample. of 22 classes from the 11schools for the deaf in New York state participated in the pro-1,1c*.Roth typical and learning disabled deaf children were inclui0A.Instructional trocedures and materials were selected for the fiveskill areas of gross rotor coordination, sensory-motor interatior,visual analysis, attention and memory, and conceptualization.Sequential levels of instruction were developed, as was a teacher'sguide. The proiras, was subjected to pilot trial in the field Apd tterevaluated by the administration of the CRtED 1 Test Battery toparticipating classes, and by rating forps, written narratives, anddiscussion ftcm both teachers and observers. Included are theevaluation results, on the basis of vtich recommendations are malefor program modifications related to the variables of interest, levelof mastery, validity of sentience, relevance, and practicality. (vw)

IlOwedt -_

";.4. ,}17".1: ,

.

URRICULUM DEVEL .PMENt: FOR YOU:77454. - '1%; 47.& F.411141kliat.X..',L:Cj

DEAF, CHILDREN WITH SPECIFIC

EARNING' DISABILITIES 1AGES 4-8).. .

CREED.

Cooperalve Research Endeavors in Education of the Deaf)-0,

. P.1. 89.31

=

rRestahio, Ph.D., Principal hiviitigator

Socha', MA. Research Asiaciate

-

State` 14k.iestiee

, t

()search Associate:1 v.

1 "" Reeearoh. .ABIlietante

REED 4 PERSONNEL, ,vi,*4..A.e,t,*

°

rancee Cronir.; SuperintendentJosepht s School for the Dea

Lillian` CI R, :iteetainO," Ph. D rAssistant' Protector Fordham UniversitResearch Department

.4.

LeXington' School tor the Deaf -;

Penny At", Socher, 44.A.:.!Redearch Departtheht

Lexington' School for the Dear

ta.. t. '4400Oharldtte' ZeiglerRedettreh' NbartatentLexington School`: .the Deaf.

d

Hil),-Neak;.Neir York.

New iiirkqlehd61116.Or _the'DeitWhite Plaina...,):Iteif YOrk

eti York ,iltutok SchOdlofoi'.the Deaf'itOine), New York' "ROctienter Sohbol for the, DeafItoeheeter, New York' "'

4°A}

0'804,Oi tt,

S t JosephIs Schocl for the, Deafkronx, New Ydrk

tV, Mary I 6 School for' Deafutf!lo New York k-1

.' -.4Nadeau Day Clattel for .Deat Childrenitostbury, Nei! Ytirk

A V)Cleary Sohodl for the-Lake Ronkonkoma, New York

School for the DeafJunior Hi ' School #47New yorks* New York

mi and 4l earingititattiti

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT FOR YOUNG DEAF CHILDRENWITH SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES

(Ages 4 - 8 in New York State)

Lillian C. R. Restaino, Ph.D., Principal InvestigatorPenny A. Socher, M.A., Research Associate

PROJECT CREED 4

September 1969 - August 1970

TITLE I ESEA#ED 70-015

V 1 111i/I11111 01 11111A 1001000 I 1111101

011%101

flltf 10(01111 P11 CI 0100CIRK II IYItllt If 0ft11010 /001 iMM 00611/17411 Witt% 11 Wm ly mor 0t ovtos

Vint 110 101 IIIIII1r/111/111111 011(111 0.10 01111(1001

0011101 of MK,

Division for Handicapped ChildrenThe State Education Department

Albany, N.Y. 12224

EC031251

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface iv

Chapter I: Introduction 1

Foundations of CREED 4 1

The Relationship Between Assessment andInstruction 1

The Relationship Between CREED 3 TestBattery and CREED 4

Chapter II: Methods 11,Subjects 11

Procedures 11Selection of Instructional Procedures and Materials 11Development of Sequential Levels 12The Development of the Teacher's Guide 17The Evaluation of the Program 22Training of Teachers and Observers 24

Chapter III: Results 30Evaluation of the Field Trials 30

Teachers' Ratings 30Teachers' Comments 39Observers' Ratings 42Observers' Comments 48

The Relationship Between Teachers' Ratings andObservers' Recordings 48

Tests 49

Chapter TV: Discussion and Recommendations 113Bases for Program Modification

InterestLevel of Mastery 114Validity of Sequence 114Relevance 117Practicality

114Summary

Implications from the Processes of Evaluation 118

Teachers as Objective Evaluators 119

The Place of CREED 4 in the Education of theYoung Deaf Child 120

References 122

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)Page

Appendix A: List of Activities 124Appendix B: Teacher Evaluation Forms 127Appendix C: Observer Evaluation Forms 131

LIST OF TABLESTable Page

1. Means, Standard Deviations and F Values for Specialvs. Typical Children of 3-4 Years of Age-CREED 3 (1968-1969) 8

2. Means, Standard Deviations and F Values for Specialvs. Typical Children of 5-6 Years of Ape-CREED 3 (1968-1969) 9

3. Means, Standard Deviations and F Values for Specialvs. Typical Children of 7-8 Years of Age-CREED 3 (1968-1969) 10

4. Number of Special and Typically Deaf ChildrenParticipating in Field Trials of CREED 4 Project 29

5. Teacher Evaluation of Materials 516. Frequency of Teachers' Responses to Items on Rating

Forms for the Evaluation of Individual Children:Interest 65

7. Frequency of Teachers' Responses to Items on RatingForms for the Evaluation of Individual Children:Sustained Interest 72

8. Frequency of Teachers' Responses to items on RatingForms for the Evaluation of Individual Children:Amount of Demonstration Required 79

9. Frequency of Teachers' Responses to Items on RatingForms for the Evaluatior, of Individual Children:Mastery of Task 86

10. Frevency of Teachers' Responses to Items on RatingForms for the Evaluation of Individual Children:Ease of Manipulation 93

11. Frequency of Teachers' Responses to Items on RatingForms for the Evaluation of Individual Children:Complexity and Quantit4; of Stimuli 95

12. Mean Percentages of Ratings on Observation Schedules ofTeacher-Child-Material Interaction: Interest 99

13. Mean Percentages of Ratings rn Observation Schedules ofTeacher-Child-Material Interaction: SustainedInterest-Positive 100

14. Mean Percentages of Ratings on Observation Schedules ofTeacher-Child-Material Interaction: Inattention 101

15. Frequency of Observers' Responses to Items onObservers' General Rating Rehm: Attention 102

irta, 7t1,11., ,42-s

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)Table Page

16. Frequency of Observers' Responses to Items onObservers' General Rating Form: Demonstration 105

17. Frequency of Observers' Responses to Items onObservers' General Rating Form: Manipulation 108

18. Correlations Between Teachers' Evaluations andObservers' Recordings 110

19. Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Obtained bySpecial and Typical 3- Through 4-Year-Olds onCREED 3 Test Battery 111

20. Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Obtained bySpecial and Typical 5- Through 6-Year-Olds onCREED 3 Test Battery 111

21. Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Obtained bySpecial 7- Through 8-Year-Olds on CREED 3 Test Battery 112

unorammigokaiwr:Ait:-Z--;"

PREFACE

A major goal of the CREED program of the past four years

has been met with the publication of the present volume, CREED 4.

That is, we have begun to develop a remediation program for the

special deaf child in the five skill areas clearly indicated in

a previous phase (CREED 3) as needing remedial procedures if

this child is to make progress in school learning.

It is but a beginning. CREED 5, presently in process, aims

to present a systematic sequence of behavioral objectives -

subordinate to general instructional goals - which would extend

the foundation of CREED )4 into a more fully articulated curriculum

for deaf children with learning disabilities. This will be

published in late 1971.

Our gratitude is extended to all those who participated in

the program, but primarily to teachers and children without whose

helpful cooperation the entire project would have gained us nothing.

vi4

Frances Cronin

Chapter I

Introduction

Foundatims of CREED 4

1, The Relationship Between Assessment and Instruction

The projects entitled Cooperative Research Endeavors

for the Education of the Deaf: (CREED), sponsored jointly by

the Division for Handicapped Children, State Education

Department of New York, and eleven schools for the deaf in

New York State, from 1967 to date, have had as their expressed

goal the improvement of instruction for deaf children with

special learning problems. It has been the strong belief of

the CREED research staff that such a goal may best be fulfilled

through an instructional program similar to those described by

Lindvall and Cox (1970), Bloom (1968) and Carroll (1963). Each

of these educational theorist-practitioners proposes an

approach to education that demands one fundamental requisite- -

an intensive, immediate relationship between diagnosis and

instruction.

It has become abundantly clear that progress in

learning can take place only when we provide the teacher

with a continuous source of information about the

achievements of the child with whom she is working, a

progress record that is directly related to the specific

content of her instructional program. In other words, we

must restrict assessments to those facets of instruction

that are of practical importance to the classroom learning

of the child, and we must provide the teacher with such

assessments of the child's progress systematically at

sequential levels within the program.

In order to develop such a program and to implement

it successfully, we must first make a radical change in our

interpretation and use of the principles of assessment and

learning. We must view the objective of assessment as the

descript'on of the level at which certain instructional pro-

cedures are indicated. In other words, the child's score is

used t) indicate to the teacher where in her instructional

program she is to begin work with him. Scores than are not

used as normative data; in fact, norms are totally useless

as instructional tools for the teacher. They provide her

with interesting demographic information, but comparing an

individual child's score with a normative group is essen

tially useless to the teacher or the child in effecting in-

struction progress. As Lindvall and Cox state:

The information that a pupil has a grade equivalentof 3.5 years, or that he ranks tenth in his classwhen Compared with c,.her pupils, is not sufficientfor the planning of individual programs. What isneeded are measures that indicate how well pupilproficiency corresponds to some desired criterionrather than measures Wlich provide only a rankingof pupils in relation to each other. (pp. 15-16,1970)

Similarly, we must view learning (i.e., the mastery

of the content of classroom instruction) as a function not of

comparative differences in ability, but as a function of

differences in time. Both Carroll ant Shulman (1963) have

proposed that we look anew upon the concept of mastery.

Shulman states:

Our traditional conceptions of readiness happen tofit nicely with the institutionalized tempo of ourschool systems. In education we characteristically

2

(%

s2, :veggeg&-Orrgripes/111000effew/W01p,, viC7111114=WIrMarZilaWiteltottirwitetz , t

treat time as a constant while allowing achievementto act as a variable.

Our purposes in education are to see to it that acertain minimal level of competence is achieve byeach learner. To do so, we should logically setlevels of achievement as constants and let time actas a variable. (17.--4-91 1970)

Carroll has long been the adherent of such an

interpretation of aptitude. He has defined aptitude as

"the amount of time required by the learner to attain

mastery of a learning task." (1963)

While the concept of mastery as a function of time

is not necessarily related to the concept of assessment as

individual prescription, they are, in combination, formidable,

and can form the basis for a superior program of instruction

that recognizes the wide variation in abilities in one class-

room. Such a program confronts the problem of such variation

through a comprehensive description of each child's abilities

and disabilities and through a recommended set of experiences

specifically designed for him.

If educators sincerely accept their responsibility

for teaching all children, then clearly we must encourage the

development of programs which not only provide the teacher

specific descriptions of a child's problems, but provide

as well procedures and materials to help solve them. When

the CREED sponsors decided to follow the construction of the

CREED 3 Test Battery with a more systematic development of

procedures to aid in the remediation of the deficiencies un-

covered, the CREED Research staff approached the project with

the expectation that eventually the Test Battery and the

'i3

AivrxIlirnics=oraWtvg.vi.raz

remediation procedures could be developed into a program

of Instruction specific to the unique needs of each child.

They view the activities in CREED 4 as an essential first

step in that direction.

2. The Relationship Between CREED 3 Test Battery

and CREED 4

It is quite possible that the project described

here, the fourth of a series, may be considered apart from

its predecessors; it is better evaluated, however, as one

part of the sequence of on-going CREED projects, which, as

stated above, have been undertaken to provide aid for the

educator of the deaf Caild with special learning disabilities.

The specific objective of the CREED 4 project is the

development of activities and materials for the remediation

of deficits found in deaf children with special learning

problems who had been adminlstered the battery of tests

developed in CREED 3. The CREED 3 Test Battery was devised

as an assessment tool to be administered by teachers in order

to provide them with information about their children in five

skill areas. The skill areas evaluated were those judged by

teachers 0/ he deaf to be critical to the successful

instruction of the deaf child with special learning

disabilities.

In 1968-1969, all children between the ages of 3 and

9 in eleven schools for the deaf in New York State were

administered the CREED 3 Test Battery. These children were

4

rtr.--xsosit

'1

divided into two groups: those designated by the respective

school personnel as "typictlly deaf" and those seen as deaf

with "special learning problems." The test results eagles 1

through 3, see pages 8 through 10) provided very strong

confirmation that there are large numbers of children in these

schools for the deaf who present learning problems very

different from those confronting educators of the deaf in

the past.

Children who "ere designated as those with special

learning problems were significantly poorer in performance

in all five skill areas than those termed typical. Both

special and typical groups increased in score with age, but

special children increased at a slower rate than did the

typical children. The gap between performance levels of the

two groups increased with age; i.e., the differences between

the two groups became greater as a function of increasing.age.

The results of the CREED 3 Test Battery have provided

educators of the deaf with a statistical description of the

learning deficiencies of their children and the CREED Research

staff with a convincing argument for the refinement of the

test battery into a standardized assessment tool The primary

objective of the initial phases of CREED, however, is not

assessment; it is the improvement of instruction for the deaf

child with special learning problems. It must be remembered

that the CREED 3 Test Battery was developed in order to provide

more precise descriptions of learning deficits in deaf children,

for the expressed purpose of improving remediation procedures.

5

-10

In other words, it was believed that greater specificity in

describing deficiencies would pr)vide the opportunity to apply

remediation procedures appropriate to the greatly differing

needs of individual children. It was expected that the

teacher would use the test battery to determine in which

of the five skill areas a child needed help; she would then

direct special efforts to these deficiencies.

Toward fulfillment of this general objective, CREED 3

culminated with the consideration of the results by three

educational specialists (Dr. Ray Barsch, Dr. Margaret Shepherd

and Dr. Gloria Wolinsky) and the presentation to educators of

the deaf c: their recommendations for remediation. The

seminars held for this purpose provided invaluable information

for immediate implementation by the participating

educators in their classrooms. The success of the seminars

encouraged the CREED sponsors to propose that attention be

directed to the systematic development of procedures for

remediation of the deficiencies found in the sample of children

tested in CREED 3. Thus, the seminars were equally important

to the CREED Research staff for the cataloging of information

into their growing fund of remedial procedures and materials

for the subsequent CREED 4.

It should be apparent from the above discussion that

the activities in the current project are a dire'..t function of

those in CREED 3; it is only on a chronological basis that they

may be treated as separate entities. In moving toward

6

fulfillment of the over-all goal, each CREED project is

developed to meet specific objectives. Because CREED 4

is more a developmeilt than a research phase, its obectives

were limited to the following:

1. The accumulation and evaluation of instructional

procedures and materials in the five sk_11 areas of gross-

motor coordination, sensory-motor integration, visual

analysis., attention and memory, and conceptualization.

2. The selection of materials and procedures

appropriate to the sample of skills measured by the CREED 3

Test Battery.

3. The sequencing of the instructional procedures

and materials based upon theoretical descriptions of processes

of development.

4. The evaluation of the use of the instructional

materials and procedures by participating teachers and neutral

observers on the basis of: age of child; interest; level of

mastery; validity of sequence

7

;relevance, and practicality.

. -Aber+ " 1112.1111M1....,....rtr"."

TABLE 1

Means, Standard Deviations and F Values

for Special vs. Typical Children of 3-4 Years of Age

CREED 3 (1968-1969)

Test

Special

(N=11q

Typical (N.332)

FPaean

.mean

S.D.

Gross Motor

3.00

1.31

3.66

1.17

15.79**

VMI

4.72

1.89

5.20

1.58

3.22

Knox Cubes

1.78

2.22

3.32

2.84

13.84**

Mannequin

4.27

1.44

4.66

1.04

4.07*

Concept Test - Concept Score

5.25

6.06

5.46

5.79

.01

Concept Test - Association Score

2.04

2.31

2.25

2.22

.76

Association Test

3.92

2.95

4.98

2.78

4.89*

Form Copying

13.47

2.96

12.02

3.47

7.40**

DLM

2.18

2.30

2.40

2.25

.27

Shell Game

1.74

1.13

1.92

1.10

1.63

Matching Color Cubes

.79

.40

.91

.29

8.65**

Matching Forms

1.83

.46

1.85

.43

.04

*F.05=3.86

"F.01=6-70

TABLE 2

Means, Standard Deviations and F Values

for Special vs. Typical Children of 5-6 Years

of Age

CREED 3 (1968-1969)

Test

Special (N =65)

Typical (N =162)

FMean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Gross Motor

4.17

1.61

4.92

1.53

7.25**

vmi

5.74

1.18

6.32

.83

10.77**

Knox Cubes

4.78

3.08

7.32

3.58

8.89**

Mannequin

4.88

.67

4.90

.6o

.39

Concept Test - Concept Score

5.27

4.98

7.12

5.29

2.96

Concept Test - Association Score

3.25

2.86

3.91

2.56

.49

Association Test

5.72

3.04

7.64

1.77

22.48**

Form Copying

703

3.69

4.76

3.19

10.79 **

See Quees

3.31

2.77

4.85

3.87

1.64

Target Test

4.6o

2.98

7.01

2.69

21.45**

PSS

4.26

1.91

5.57

2.15

11.26**

Frostig I

3.85

2.61

4.98

2.47

2.77

Frostig V

2.28

2.01

3.96

2.16

14.08**

Gibson Transformations

128.60

45.94

140.46

22.39

2.47

Visual Discrimination

5.05

3.0o

6.68

2.1i

6.72**

Seriation

.22

.41

.36

1.68

*F .o5 °3.86

--3 86

**F.01=6

-70

TABLE 3

Means and Standard Deviations and F Values

for Special vs. Typical Children of 7-8 Years of Age

CREED 3 (1968-1969)

Test

Special (N =86)

Typical (N =203)

FMean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Gross Motor

5.35

1.51

6.14

1.15

_

17.97**

vmi

5.58

.71

5.83

.48

7.55**

Knox Cubes

7.43

4.34

-10.66

3.60

32.32**

Mannequin

4.88

.44

4.95

.41

2.19

Concept Test - Concept Score

7.05

5.61

6.95

5.84

.001

Concept Test - Association Score

4.65

2.90

5.89

3.04

6.92**

Association Test

7.66

2.29

8.63

1.25

17.41**

Form Copying

4.53

3.44

2.14

2.14

39.09'"

See Quees

5.65

4.22

9.07

4.50

25.97**

Target Test

7.23

2.88

8.6o

1.94

21.83**

PSS

5.55

2.24

6.83

1.99

19.80**

Frostig I

6.26

2.71

6.69

2.54

.71

Frostig V

4.93

1.91

6.13

1.25

32.87**

Gibson Transformations

136.74

35.51

154.20

11.16

34.86**

Visual Discrimination

6.92

3.00

8.45

2.65

15.99**

Seriation

.42

.49

.8o

.40

33.O8*-

*F

-3 86

.o5-

Chapter II

Methods

A. Subjects

The children who were selected to participate were

a sample of twenty-two classes out of the larger population

of deaf children in eleven schools for the deaf in New York

State. In recognition of the problems confronting them in

the implementation of the program, administrators were re-

quired to select two classes for participation, at least one

of which consisted of special deaf children. Table 4, page 29,

presents the total number of children participating in the field

trial of the program.

B. Procedures

1. Selection of Instructional Procedures and Materials

In order to find available educational methods and

materials that might be adapted for inclusion in the program,

a variety of sources were explored. These sources included

professional journals and texts, commercial educational

supply firms and governmental agencies.

The New York State Regional Special Education

Instructional Materials Center at Hunter College provided an

introduction to a wide range of currently available materials,

instructional manuals, professional texts, and program reports.

Professional publications provided suggestions for

activities, and also served as the impetus for the generation

of additional learning activities. Among the texts consulted

were those by Evelyn Sharp, Keith Beery, Betty Van Witsen,

Newell Kephart, Ray Barsch, Hortense Barry and Robert E. Valett.

11

Many of the activities used in the CREED program

made use of materials purchased from educational suppliers.

Since ready-made materials were not available for

many of the activities, CREED'S staff collaborated with

printing and craft specialists to carry out project designs.

2. Development of Sequential Levels.

The selection of matching procedures and/or materials

for a skill area covered in the Test Battery proved to be a

formidable task. The problem confronting the CREED staff was

that, while we are, in fact, considering each test as one for

criterion-reference with the intention of bringing the child

to the level of its final mastery,/ the skill areas covered

are such that a test of one must necessarily involve some level

of another. For example, the criterion test of "Sensory-Motor

Integration: Form-Copying" must necessarily involve mastery at

some level of Visual Analysis. As described in the CREED 3

Report (1969) the CREED staff used a theoretical hierarchical

sequence in the development of the CREED 3 Test Battery. Until

more intensive work is done with the battery as it stands,

however, it must be considered at a preliminary level of

articulation. Each test, then, consists of underlying skills

other than the major one under which it is categorized. It is

reasonable to assume, therefore, that systematic instruction

in one skill may lead to improvement in another skill. However,

until a controlled study is carried out for the evaluation of

the inter-relationship among the skills and the instructional

procedures, we can not hope to predict the extent of the effect

12

- .,.-

1)

of the relationship.

In teas study, the CREED staff classified

instructional procedures and material and specific tests on

the basis of the greatest overlap of hypothesized underlying

skills.

Because of the large number of elements in the program,

it is possible to present only a brief description in this

report.

a. GROSS MOTOR

The Gross Motor activities are designed to give the

child who demonstrated difficulty in this area increased

experiences in gross physical movement and to provide

opportunities for the child to further develop the larger

muscle groups.

The activities are divided into four main areas:

Jumping, Balancing, Throwing, and Rhythmic Movement. A

sequence of suggested activities is provided for each of these

areas.

Jumping included: jumping to the floor from a raised

platform; jumping forwards, backwards and sideways as a free

movement in space; along a line and from one confined space

to another; over a raised obstacle, and jumping in a

rhythmical pattern.

Balancing activities included: hopping forwards,

backwards and sideways freely in space; along a line; from

one confined space to another, and over raised obstacles.

For those children who performed poorly on tests of

eye-hand coordination, throwing activities were included.

13

rn

%944711",..-rarlICIr

Some of the activities were: throwing a bean bag from a

stationary position at a target located on the wall, on

the floor, or directly beneath the child. At a more complf,

level, the factor of locomotion was added.

A wire whisk and an egg beater were used for the

development of continuous rhythmical movement. The activities

included: beating colored soap flakes and water; making

instant pudding, and whipping cream.

b. ATTENTION

For children who demonstrated short attention spans,

the following series of activities are designed to develop

the ability to attend to relevant stimuli in the educational

environment for increasingly _Longer periods of time.

Included in the activities were: the identification of

briefly illuminated colors and pictures and sequences of

colors and pictures; attending and responding to the focal

point of an illuminated beam until the beam fell within a

specified target area, and attending and responding to a series

of cards (pictures, letters, patterns) until a previously

specified stimulus appeared.

c. MEMORY

These tasks were designed to increase the child's

short-term memory span. Children were asked to recall a

missing object that had been removed from a displayed series

and later to replace it in the original sequence and array of

different types of manipulative materials. Three-dimensional

14

toys, colorful pictures, beads having two attributes

(color and shape) and geometric forms having three attributes

(color, shape and size) were used as stimuli. The children

were given practice in reproducing a sequence of colored

cubes placed vertically within a tube and in remembering the

location of stimuli (beads and M & Ws) beneath an array of

covers that remained in a stationary position in space.

d. VISUAL ANALYSIS

In order to glve additional practice to the child

who demonstrated difficulty in the analysis of visual stimuli

and to teach him how to formulate strategies for making visual

discriminations, several basic tasks were devised. The

activities included matching a standard presented either above

or to the left of several choices. The number of choices from

which the stimuli identical to the standard was chosen varied

from two to ten.

The stimuli consisted of: three-dimensional objects

and two-dimensional geometric fcrms that varied in color, size

and shape; pictures; printed geometric forms, and single

alphabet letters. Both the alphabet letter series and the

geometric form series were presented in consumable individual

booklets. Tne decoys for the series of printed geometric

forms were specific distortions broken figures, straight

lines changed to curved lines, and rotations in space . The

decoys for the alphabet letters Isere other letters that closely

rLsembled the standard.

15

e. SENSORY-MOTOR INTEGRATION

The aim of the Sensory-Motor Integration activities

was to develop tactile body awareness, fine motor

coordination with direct finger manipulation of small.

Objects, and pre-writing manipulation activities requiring

the use of a pencil or crayon.

Activities of direct manipulation included:

stringirgbeads; punching holes with a single-hole puncl

under-and-over and overhand lacing, and matching and joining

nuts and bolts of various sizes.

Paper and pencil or crayon activities included

drawing lines within pre-drawn channels. Straight, curved

and complex channels were provided in three widths __

one-inch, 1-inch and Ili-inch. A series of patterns to give

practice in drawing lines from one beginning point through

intermediate points to an end, were also used. The points

to be connected with both straight and curved lines were

1 inch, 2 inches and 6 inches apart.

f. CONCEMALIZATION

A series of activities was devised for the

development of conceptual thinking. Thesc were divided

into three main areas: Association, Seriation and

Classification.

Ti,e exercises in Association directed the child

to group three-dimensional objects and, later, pictures

on the basis of contiguity and similarity (i.e., fireman +

fire engine, rocketship + astronaut).

16

Within Seriation the activities required that the

child: orde a series of three-dimensional objects,

two - dimensional geometric shapes (circles and rectangular

strips), and pictures, according to size; and that he order

sequences based on patterns of color and shape (e.g., 2 reds,

2 blues, 2 reds, 2 blues; or 2 ovals, 1 triangle, 2 ovals,

1 triangle.)

The classification tasks required that the child:

complete matrices where the variables were size, color and

shape; group three-dimensional items on the basis of two

attributes (color and size) and three attributes (color, size

and shape), and group three-dimensional objects and, later,

pictures on the basis of an inclusive classification (e.g.,

all cups, all houses, all birds).

3. The Development of the Teacher's Guide

In designing a Teacher's Guide to accompany the

program, the CREED 4 staff sought to fulfill two objectives:

the comprehensive description of procedures and materials in

the five skill areas; and the explication of fundamental

principles of learning and child development upon which the

program is based. The time period of CREED 4 did not permit

the appropriate development of both objectives. Upon

conside)ation of the priorities involved, the CREED staff

decided that the materials and procedures would be tried

with greater confidence On the part of the teachers if they

were provided with the fullest presentation of recommended

instructions. Thus, we concentrated our efforts upon the

17

development of the first objective; the se,,:..cnd was treated

to only the briefest of discussions.

Despite this compromise, the staff feels very

strongly that teachers should not be expected to implement

this or any other program without a clear understanding of

the theoretical foundations upon which the progra, is bascd.

It is our hope that in future projects we will be afforded

the opportunity to provide teachers with the background

appropriate to the optimal implementation of a program.

The instructions as developed in the Teacherts

Guide attempted to meet two objectives: first, to provide

a comprehensive description of one method of using specific

materials at specific sequential levels; and second, to

implement in these descriptions certain principles of

learning and child development.

Examples from the Guide might better demonstrate

the attempt made to fulfill these objectives:

VISUAL DISCRIMINATION

General Purpose

In order to function at any level, children,and most especially deaf children, must masterthe skill of visual discrimination of theelements in their environment. We require thechild to develop this skill of reducing visualinformation for processing rapidly andefficiently with little direction as well aslittle attention to increasing levels ofcomplexity.

CREED 4 personnel have sought to implement a

18I

sequence of increasing complexity in theactivities presented here, and to encouragea strategy on the part of the teachers indirecting the child's attention to thecritical elements of the figures presented.

Activities

1. Three dimensional forms.

Materials:

squares 4 sizestriangles 4 sizesovals 4 sizescircles 4 sizes

4 of each of the above forms in thefollowing colors: red, green, blue,yellow.

The child will be required to discriminatebetween objects that differ in:

a. Form - Present standard (item to beMlirChed) one correct match and oneincorrect match in same color andsame size as shown inffiagram.

teacher

A Ach I

SAY: "Find the same one."

When child selects correct one, nod"yes" and direct his attention toelements of similaria betweenmatching items and elements ofdifference between those items notmatching.

Select similar tasks. Vary the modeof presentation as follows:

19

When child masters above, increase the numberof choices to 3-4-5.

b. Color - Present incorrect matches inSAME FORM and SAME SIZE, varying coloronly.

e.g.

e.g.

Continue as in "a."c. Size - Present incorrect matches in

TWO FORM and COLOR, varying size only.

e.g. XI\ 1

Lill\ X I

1

Continue as in "a."

When child is able to match correctlyon basis of FORM, COLOR and SIZE atleast 3 times, continue with "2."

MEMORY

General Purpose

While we may help the child to master the processesof discrimination and classification, if we do not

20

9")

also help him to store the content and strategieswe teach him, we are failing him.

The goals of the activities presented hereare to increase short-term memory skills. Short-tezm memory processing is a critical preliminaryto long-term encoding, if content is lost in thispreliminary stage, it will never get the chanceto become a permanent part of the child's structureof knowledge. As the child masters each task,decrease the time you permit him to view thesamples.

Activities

Recall of a Sequence of Forms: Change in Location

Materials: Classification Forms

Activities:

1. Place forms in pattern la.Direct child's attention to each element

in pattern.Ask child to turn around.Change Pattern la to Pattern lb.Ask child to turn back.SAY AND GESTURE: "I moved something.

Put it back the way it was."If child does not remember, place

forms again in Pattern la.

Repeat procedure from beginning.

Patterns: Chane in Location SHAPE onlPatterns: ante n ca on 'I OR onPatterns: hange n cation olinR an.

-SHAPE)

Continue with pattern changes of yourown design.

In the above examples, a brief general statement of

purpose is presented to give the teacher some understanding

of the reasoning behind the selection of tasks. In addition,

the instructions provide her with one possible procedure for

training the skill under consideration at one level of its

sequence. The Guide is considered a foundation; it is a

21

preliminary proposal for the teacher's implementation of the

program. It was the expectation of the CREED 4 staff that

thrpugh the evaluation of teachers and neutral obscrvers,

changes would be effected to make it a more appropriate and

effective tool. For a complete list of activities included fn

the CREED 4 Teacher's Guide see Appendix A, pgs. thru 126.

4. The Evaluation of the Program

In the project proposal for CREED 4, it was

emphasized that a program must be subjected to pilot trial

in the field and evaluated and modified accordingly, before

it may be considered for implementation on a larger scale

and finally subjected to rigorous evaluation. The ;procedures

in thi3 phase of the project were the following:

a. the administration of the CREED 3 Test Batter;;to participating classes.

b. the evaluation of the elements of the program.

By teachers - Printed Rating FormsWritten NarrativesIndividual and Group Dicussion

By observers - Printed Rating FormsWritten Narratives

c. training of Teachers and Observers.

Because the staff considers that the ultimate value cf

the program will be measured by the final implementation cf

the results of the evaluation, this phase will be discussed

in depth.

a. The administration if the CREED 3 Test Battery

to participating classes

The administrators of the even schools for the deaf in

New York State were requested to select two classes to

22

''f!

particpate in the field trial of the program. We requested

that at least one of the classes include children who fell

into the category of "special deaf child," as operationally

defined in the on-going CREED project. The operational

definition for "special deaf child" is a deaf child who has

been designated as one with special learning problems by

.1upervisors and teachers in his respective school. Children

categorized as "typically deaf" were included in recognition

of administrative problems in the implementation of the

program. The number of children in the current project is

presented in Table 4, page 29.

While the major objective of this phase was the "child-

testing" of the elements of the program, the fundamental

responsibility of the CREED project is service. Thus, it

was decided to administer the CREED 3 Test Battery to all

participating children in order to provide teachers with a

description of their performance in the five skill areas.

Within the exigencies of time an attempt was made to recommend

to the teacher the different elements of the program that

might meet the varying needs of her children.

A limitation on the testing must be clearly stated here.

As explained in the CREED 3 Final Report, (1969) the CREED 3

Test Battery was designed to be administered by the child's

teacher. Because the teachers in the current project were

to be involved for a five-month period in the field trial

phase, we could not require that they administer the Test

Battery, which takes about one and one-half hours per child.

23

To overcome this difficulty, well-qualified examiners were

engaged to administer the tests. We believe that in many

children such a testing situation may well provide a

minimum level of performance; however, we considered that

.:ven the minimum performance provided important information

for the prescription of a program of instruction for the

child. Certainly, if the child were more competent at a

specific level of a skill than he demonstrated on the test,

such competence would be reflected in his performance at that

level under the more comfortable condition:, of instruction by

his teacher. While such an occurrence may result in spurious

test-task relationships, at this point in the program

development we were primarily interested in the child's

performance with the tasks. Analyzing the nature of the

relationship between the test-task and the program-task is

beyond the scope of the current project. Indeed, the results

of the current project are prerequisite to such a study.

b. Evaluation of the elements of the program

Our objective at this point in the project wasto develop

a body of activities of satisfactory content validity that we

believed were likely to aid in the remediation of deficiencies

in tasks on the CREED 3 Test Battery. While content validity

is necessary, it i. not sufficient; if the materials and

procedures are to succeed they must meet criteria other than

apparent relevance. It is at this level that many programs

fail. The CREED staff considered the following criteria to

24

1

be of importance in the use of program materials with three

through eight-year-old deaf children with special learning

problems:

1. interest - immediate and sustained2. ease of manipulation3. amount of demonstraZdon required4. time required to master task5. attention and distractibility

In order to obtain information about these variables,

the participating teachers were requested to complete special

rating forms. A sample of the Teacher's Rating Form may be

found in Appendix B) pages 127 through 130.

In addition, the CREFD staff interviewed teachers

individually, to obtain information about other aspects. of

the program, including the sequence of difficulty levels,

the relevance to their regular programs and the apparent

effectiveness in remediation of deficiencies. At these

interviews, teachers were strongly encouraged to recommend

changes at all levels of the program and to contribute their

own instructional techniques.

Because the CREED staff has found that the mutual

exchange of opinions, ideas and experiences by participating

teachers provides invaluable information for both the teacher

and the researcher, several group seminars were held for the

evaluation of the program in process.

The information obtained from the teacher was considered

as the primary source of data for program modification. The

teacher's ratings, however, contribute information after the

completion of a task. In order to obtain a full description

25

82,

of the processes involved in be implementation of the

program, an objective evaluation of the variables under

consideration must be obtained at the time of instruction

by neutral observers. Qualified persons with both educational

and psychological backgrounds were trained to be neutral

observers of the teacher-child-materials interaction on the

basis of the:

a. child's activity with the teacher

b. child's activity with the materials

c. teacher's activity with the child

and the materials

A sample of the Observer Rating Form is presented in

Appendix C.

Because both the Teacher's Rating Forms and the Observer's

Rating Forms are quite comprehensive, teachers and observers

were not required to complete the forms for every child for

every activity. It was our expectation that forms from a

majority of children in each age group for each activity would

provide a more than adequate sample for analysis of the

variables under consideration. Had we required each teacher

and observcr to complete a full set of Rating Forms we would

have needed at least twice the time allotted.

Thus, we met conditions of time and energy for teachers

and observers and children, since all children did need

instruction in all activities.

Dr. Alan Lerman, Director of the Research Department at

the Lexington School for the Deaf, was responsible for the

development of the rating instruments used by both participating

teachers and neutral observers.

26 1)11,

5. Training of Teachers and Observers

Again, exigencies of .time permitted only a minimum

period for the training of participating teachers in the use

of the program and the Rating Forms. We were particularly

pressed for time for the training of the observers. The

recording of on-going activity on an observation schedule is

a most demanding skill. In optimal training procedures,

extensive opportunity is provided for the observer to use

the instruments with supervision before compiling data with

it. While Dr. Lerman held intensive training sessions for the

observers for two days, including their use of the instruments

with video-taped sessions, actual classroom sessions, and the

evaluation of their results through group interaction,

nevertheless we can consider such a time period only a bare

minimum. The observers were, however, in constant communication

with CREED personnel, to aid in the execution of their task. It

is quite possible that so short a training period has had a

negative effect upon the reliability of the results; we can

only hope that the quality of training will mitigate -

somewhat - these effects.

The time permitted for training of the teachers was even

shorter. At the three-hour meeting, only the more complex

aspects of the procedures and the materials in the Teacher's

Guide, and the various requirements of Rating Forms, could be

discussed. This was particularly disconcerting, because the

Teacher's Guide was quite comprehensive and the teachers were

27

P.I

requested to complete 21 Rating Forms. CREED personnel

interviewed participating teachers during the trial periods,

however, so it was possible to resolve problems at the time

n_ these visits.

While we nave explained in detail the limitations of the

training, we must strongly emphasize the fact that we were not

designing an experimental research study. We were subjecting

a set of remedial procedures and materials to a pilot trial

Typically, such trial is accompanied by teachers' seminars,

during and after field testing, at which experiences are shared

with each other and with those who constructed the program.

Such seminars are of great value and, as mentioned above, the

CREED staff held three Seminars for participating teachers. In

consultation with the Research Department of the Lexington

School, the CREED staff decided that, in addition, more tangible

data should accompany these seminars so that decision-making

might be based on a firm foundation. It is worth repeating

here that service is the only goal of CREED research; thus,

statistical procedures are used not for their admirable and

parsimonious design, but in order to aid in the modification

and final implementation of the results. Thus, while there

were many problems in the gathering of the data for this study,

the very fact that it was decided to subject the program to such

evaluation processes at all is a strong argumentfbr the serious

consideration of the project's results.

28

TABLE

Number of Special and Typically Deaf ChildrenParticipating in Field Trials of CREED 4 Project

-4 Years 5 Years Years ~ 7 Years 8 Years

Special 6 42 20 17 23

Typical 6 18 6 0 0

Total 12 6o 26 17 23

29

Chapter III

Results

A. Evaluation of the Field Trials

The data for the evaluation of the field trials of the

CREED 4 program of remediation were obtained.from the

following sources:

1. Teachers' Ratings

a. Teachers' General Evaluation of the Materials

b. Teachers' Evaluation of the Individual Child

2. Teachers' Comments

a. Taped Group Seminars

b. Personal Interviews

c. Written Comments

3. Observers' Ratings

a. Observation Schedules

b. Observerst General Ratings

4. Observers' Comments

While all of these sources provided data about the

implementation of the program, they differed greatly in

design and require some explication before the presentation

of their analysis.

1. Teachers' Ratings

Two ratings were obtained from each participating

teacher: the first, a rating of the materials in which she

was asked to evaluate the activities in general after she

had worked with the children who required them; the second,

a rating of an individual child when she had completed an

activity with him.30

a. Teachers' General Evaluation of the Materials

The variables on which the activities were

evaluated included:

Difficulty in Communicating Task InstructionsRelevance to Class ObjectivesLevel of Interest to TeacherChild's Reaction to Number of Items Included

in SectionAmount of Time Required to Carry Out the

Entire SequenceEase of Manipulation of Materials by TeacherMaintenance of MaterialsStorage

Three-level scales were provided for the rating of

each variable, except for the "Amount of Time Required to

Carry Out the Entire Sequence," for which a five-level scale

was used (see Appendix B, pages 127 through 130).

The mean percentages of teacher responses to the

scales on this section of the Rating Form are reported in

Table 5 (see pages 51 through 64).

These data were obtained for the purpose of

modifying specific aspects of the program according to the

teachers' needs; however; there are some points that may be

of general interest.

The consistently positive response t' the Memory

activities warrants special attention. The activities were

viewed as both positively related to classwork and of high

interest to the teacher. An unexpected result was the

consistently negative response to the "tape" activities under

Body Awareness.

Ir ,;eneral, the pre-academic nature of the program

is reflected in the teachers' response that the activities

31

have some relation" to their regular programs. While

teachers rated Visual Analysis and Conceptualization skills

as "highly related", they rated only Association activities

as high in interest to them as Memory.

Teachers responded with "somewha: difficult to

explain" consistently to the activities in the Conceptualization

area. The activities in no other skill area were rated as

consistently at this level of difficulty.

b. The Teachers' Evaluation of the Individual Child

The child was rated on separate activities developed

for each of the five skill areas. The ratings for an activity

included those of the following variables that were appropriate

to its content:

1. Interest -- the level of interest

demonstrated by the child in the task when under teacher

direction.

2. Sustained Interest -- the level of interest

demonstrated by the child in the task when working without

direct teacher supervision.

3. Amount of Demonstration -- the number of

repetitions of directions required by the child to comprehend

task requirements.

4. Mastery of Task -- the number of trials

required by the child to complete the task.

5. Ease of Manipulation -- the observed

difficulty the child had in handling the materials.

32

6. Quantity and Complexity of Stimuli -- the

observed disturbance of the child with the number of

materials and the complexity of their components.

As mentioned above, all children did not require help

in all skill areas; thus, each child contributed ratings to

a different combination of activities. In other words, the

total sample of children upon which the analyses are based

differs from activity to activity. Admittedly, this changing

sample was permitted in recognition of the different needs of

each participating child; nevertheless, it provided us with a

large fund of information from a varying population.

Each variable was rated on 'the basis of a five-level

scale. Tabulations were made of the frequency of teachers'

ratings of their children at th3 five levels. The CREED staff

believed that the sequencing of the program components should

produce significant differences in the major variables as a

function of increasing age. Thus, all variables were evaluated

en the basis of age. Unfortunately, there were so few classes

with 3- through 4-year-olds selected by administrators for

participation that statistical analyses of their data were not

warranted. The small number of 7- through 8-year-olds as

compared with the 5- through 6-year-olds demanded that we

combine the frequencies of the teachers' ratings of their

children on the five-level scale into two levels in order to

test the differences in ratings as a function of the age of

the child.

33

The ratings were subjected to a Chi Square test of the

sivnificance of the differences between the observed proportion

of frequencies and the expected proportion of frequencies of

teachers' ratings at the separate scale levels. While it might

be expected that the small number of significant Chi Squares

are a result of chance because of the large number of tests

run, it should be remembered that the total sample upon which

each test is based is different. In other words, all Chi

Square tests were not run upon one intact group; while there

were, admittedly, many of the same children in several group,

the total group composition differed from activity to activity.

Nevertheless, caution must be exercised in making inferences

based upon differences resulting in only marginal levels cf

significance. The results of these analyses are pre,-7Iented. th

Tables 6 through 11 (see pages 65 through 98).

1. Interest -- (the lev,21 of interest demonstrated by

the child in the task when under teacher direction). The

results of the analyses of the freouencies of rating on this

variable arc reported in Table 6 (see pages 65 through 71).

There are no statistical differences in the proportion of

frequencies of teachers' ratings :Cor both age groups.

Inspection of these frequencies revealsthat teachers rated

both groups as high in interest on most activities.

2. Sustained Interest--(level of interest

demonstrated by the child in the task when working without

direct teacher supervision). The analyses of the frequencies

for this variable are reported in Table 7 (Fee pages 72 through

78).

34

There are clearly no statistical differences in the proportion

of ratings falling at the various scale levels within each age

group; in addition, similar proportions of both groups seem to

fall within ratings of high and low sustained interest. It

must be noted here that several of the teachers confided that

their ratings were somewhat unreliable because the very nature

of this variable dictated that their attention might be

directed elsewhere.

3. Amount of Demonstration--(number of repetitions

of directions required for the child to comprehend task

requirement). The results of the analyses of ratings on the

variables are presented in Table 8 (see pages 79 through 85).

Inspection of the table reveals that there

are no significant differences between the age groups in the

proportion of children rated as comprehending the'task after

one demonstration except in Balancing-Over an Obstacle,

Jumping with Locomotion, and Rhythmical Jumping. There was

a significant difference in the frequencies with which the

younger children were rated as needing more than one

demonstration for these activities.

There are no significant differences in the

frequencies of ratings under Attention activities. From

inspection, it appears that similar proportions of children

in both age groups were distributed at the scale levels.

While many understood the task with one demonstration, a

large number in both age groups needed several demonstrations.

A trend similar to that in Attention-was found in

the Memory activities (see page 81). Children in

35

both age groups are distributed at both scale levels.

Under Visual Analysis, in 4 of the 6 activities,

the 5- through 6-year-olds were rated as requiring more

demonstration for comprehension of the task than 7- through

8-year-olds.

In Sensory-Motor Integration tasks, there were no

significant differences in the proportion of those requiring

several demonstrations and those needing only one as a function

of age. Only in Hole-Punch and Channel Drawing-Chalk Board,

did the teachers rate a significantly greater number of 5-

through 6-year-olds as needing repeated demonstrations.

Under Conceptualization activities (see pages 84 and

85), both age groups fall in similar proportions at both scale

levels; thus, while many children at both age levels had no

difficulty in comprehending the task, many needed repeated

demonstrations. Only in Single Classification, Three-

dimensions-Two classes,and Single Classification, Two-

dimensions-Two classes were the older children rated

significantly less frequently as needing more than one

demonstration.

4. Mastery of Tasks--(the number of trials required

by the child to complete the task). The results of the analyses

of the ratings on this variable are reported in Table 9, pages

86 through 92. In Gross Motor activities, there are no

statistical differences in the frequencies with which the

children in both age groups are rated as mastering the tasks

36

r)f palanInc, Throwing and Hopping. Upon inspection of the

t'requencles, it is apparent that both groups find the

activLties difficult. Only in two Jumping activities were

the 7- through 8-year-olds rated as mastering the activity

with less difficulty than the 5- through 6-year-olds.

Under Attention, see pages 87 and 88, cells for

both age groups contain similar proportions of children who

could master the tasks without difficulty.

The differences in rating frequencies of the

Sensory -Motor Integration activities of Body Awareness,

Manipulation of Beads and Clothespins, Channel Drawing on

paper and Connecting the Dots, see page 89, did not reach

levels of significance; thus, we mu3t again acknowledge

that similar proportions of children in both age groups

could master these activities. On the other hand frequencies

for the tasks of Hole-Punching and Channel Drawing on the

Chalkboard reached levels of significance. Inspection of the

frequencies reveals that a larger number of children in the

older group master these tasks. It should be remembered that

significant differences were also found on these tasks in the

frequencies with which added demonstrations were needed (Table 8,

see page 83).

The differences in frequencies of all Visual

Analysis activities (Table 9, see page 88) reached levels of

significance. It is quite apparent that more 7- through

8-year-olds master the activities than do 5- through 6-year-olds.

Again, the 7- through 8-year-olds required fewer demonstrations

In 3 of the 6 tasks (Table 8, see page 82).

37

In Table 9, see page 88, the greater proportion of

ratings of 2-5 in 4 out of 5 Memory Tasks seems to indicate

that these were somewhat difficult to master for both groups.

Hole-Punching tasks are apparently easier for the 7- through

8-year-olds.

The frequencies for the Conceptualization skills

revealed a similar proportion of both age groups able to master

most activities. The older groups di.d find activities under

Seriation and Single Classification with 3 dimensional objects

easier to master than did the younger groups.

5. Ease of Manipulation--(the observed difficulty

in handling the materials). The results of the analyses of

the ratings of this variable are reported in Table 10, pages 93

and 94. It should be noted that ratings were obtained only for

those activities for which this variable was appropriate. In-

spection of the table reveals that there were no differences

in the difficulty with which age groups manipulate the program

materials except in Hule-Punching and the Serial Ordering of

gurffed circles and strips. As might be expected, the younger

chillren were rated more frequently as having difficulty in

manipulation.

6. Quantity and Complexity of Stimuli--(the

observed disturbance over the number of materials and the

complexity of their components). Inspection of Table 11 (see

pages 95 ',hrough 98) reveals very low frequencies of ratings

of the materials at scale level 2, "some distraction by number

of stimuli" and scale level 3, "very distracted by number of

stimuli."

38

It is clear that only under one Seriation task are there 7

children for whom teachers gave a negative rating on this

variable. In all other activities for which this rating

was appropriate there are 4 or fewer such negative instances.

2. Teachers' Comments

In the section on Methods we discussed the advantage.

of obtaining quantifiable data through the use of Rating Sr-'

and Observation Schedules; these data provide us with the

opportunity to evaluate all activities on all relevant variables.

They are deficient, however, in that they can not provide us

with a description of the circumstances unique to a child and

teacher. We can obtain such information only from comments from

the teacher.

In our search for as much information about the program

as was possible within the limitations of project time and

teachers' time and energy, we interviewed each teacher, taped

three group seminars for consideration of the program, and

invited written comments from all participating teachers.

It would be impossible to include here all the ideas

that the CREED 4 staff hopes to implement in the modification of

the program; however, we should like to share those recommendations

that were mentioned repeatedly and that may prove of general

interest to educators of the deaf.

a. General Recommendations

1. The program was devised so that the teacher

was required to use the same materials for activities in

different skill areas. Teachers expressed very positive feelings

about the opportunities this provided for the child to gain

39

flexibility in learning. They acknowledged that many of

their children demonstrate iigidity of behavior and difficulty

in changing from one learning set to another. They found that

this aspect of the program provided them with opportunities to

to expose the child to experiences requiring adaptation to

change.

2. The teachers acknowledged that working with

sequential activities on a one-to-one basis provided them with

the opportunity to observe strengths and weaknesses in their

children at various levels of accomplishment. They used the

activities for both instructional and diagnostic purposes.

3. Teachers felt very strongly that the steps

within the sequence of activities were too large in several

skill areas. They urged the CREED staff to interpolate

activities that would bridge the gap between these levels.

The teachers of the 7- through 8-year-olds felt that the

ceiling activities were far too easy for many children and

th.:;.t higher levels of difficulty must 1,e d,,veloped for the

older group. Those teacher: wIth younger children reql.zested

that the introductory activitle.; for eaAl skill be set at even

lower levels, to a,count for the hi].1 i'y serious

deficiencies.

4. Teachers lhat

q-tivities include thore thaf provil Iral.:!'len from

prerequisite skills tJ, tralitiona?. rcalfT,1- reluirem(ntr.

5 it was sttcnely that during the

demonstration of a taA, a m-1- I ird for the child

that after attempting the task he is able to match his work

40

r

with that of the model. They felt that such feedback would

be an aid both to instruction and to motivation.

b. Special Recommendations

1. Most teachers felt that the activities

with the Dermasil tape under Body Awareness were not useful

in developing awareness of body parts. They suggested that

other activities be devised for this function and that more

attention be directed to the development of visualization of

the body parts.

2. Teachers were pleased with the opportunity

presented to the child for use of tools such as the Hole-Punch;

however, they felt that there must be tool activities of

medium manipulative difficulty interpolated between those

with the Clip-Clothespin and the Hole-Punch.

3. While the senspry-motor manipulation skills

developed by the Peg Board-Form Copying, Channel Drawing and

Connecting Dots activities were acknowledged as important,

the tasks were described as of low interest. It was recommended

that the tasks be redesigned with more novel forms and attractive

colors.

)4 Teachers felt that the attention and memory

activities were singularly useful. They felt that there is a

dearth of materials for the training of concentrated focusing

of attention, and for the extension of a child's span of short-

term memory. They urge very strongly that the activities in

these areas be greatly expanded.

41

1q

5. Teachers found that the forms used for

Visual Analysis and Classification were difficult to sort

and prepare for the dmonstration. The beads used in

Manipulation, Memory and Sequencing activities were also

considered unwieldy. Teachers urged that holders be designed

for these materials to simplify their presentation.

6. While the teachers felt that the opportunity

to observe the child on a one-to-o,le basis on the Attention,

Memory and Classification activities provided invaluable

information, they believed that the children also enjoyed

working together on such activities without direct teacher

involvement. They stated that the children enjoyed taking

turns as "teacher" and, in so doing, both learned and taught.

3. Observers' Ratings

As mentioned above, the observers were trained

in the use of an observation schedule (Appendix C, see pages

131 through 133). This interaction was separated into discrete

elements for the purposes of recording. To fulfill the goal

of program modification the elements to be observed and recorded

were as follows:

CHILD ACTIVITY WITH TEACHER

A. Child does not attend to teacher

B. Child watches teacher (includes watchinghands, etc. while she demonstrates; passive)

C. Child "talks to" teacher (active interaction;not just passive repeats of teachers' words;includes non-verbal Actions)

42

CHILD ACTIVITY WITH MATERIALS

1. Child does not attend to materials

2. Child locks at materials

3. Child manipulates materials (includestouching for play as well as executionof task)

TEACHER ACTIVITY

0 Teacher attends to others and otherthings (anything extraneous to task)

W. Teacher watches child

D. Teacher demonstrates materials

The observers were present one-half day a week for eight

weeks in each class. They observed different children working

with different materials for 10-to-20 minute periods. They

observed the teacher and child on a one-to-one basis and

recorded their observations separately for each child and

for each activity. For example, they recorded Johnny B.

working with Miss J. on the Seriation activity of ordering

gummed circles for a period of 15 minutes. As with the

Teachers' Evaluation of Individual Children, their data for

separate activities are based upon different combinations of

children, since different children needed work in different

activities.

In addition, they rated the interaction of the teacher,

child and materials after the session WAS completed. As with

the participating tettChers, their general comments about the

materials were soliAted by the CREED staff.

a. The Observation Schedules

Much information may be obtained from an

analysis of the data in the observation schedules. For the

143

purposes of this report, the data were analysed to determine

the intelest level of the materials. Three categories were

devised:

1) Overall Interest -- score obtained by counting

the number of observations that contain a 2 or 3 (:;ee Appendix c,

pages 131 through 133, for specific items).

2) Sustained Interest -- score obtained by

counting the number of occurrences of A20, A2W, A30 and A3W.

This is a sub - category of Interest, measuring the interest

of the child in the materials when not directly instructed

by the teacher.

3) Inattention -- a score obtained by counting

the number of occurrences of AID and A1W.

The first two categories were similar to those used in

the Teachers? Evaluation Forms an the third is a negative

corollary of the first two. To quantify the data a percentage

was computed based upon the number of occurrences of a behavior

in a specific category over total behaviors recorded for that

session. In other words, the recorded behavior elements that

were used to construct the category Interest (all 2ts and 3's)

were counted and divided by the total number of behaviors

recorded for that session.

The percentages for each category are reported in

Table 12 (see page 99). It is readily apparent that the

children demonstrated a high overall interest in the

materials.

Consideration of the percentages under Sustained-Interest

must be made with caution. They are clearly dependent upon

1414

t:1

the opportunity provided to the child for independent activity

in the short space of time in which the observer was present.

In addition, a low percentage might well be the result of the

difficulty the child had in comprehending the task instru ction,

thus requiring that the session observed be devoted largely to

that component. Typically, the observers recorded behavior at

the time of the introduction of the activity to the child.

Thus, there is the strong probability that they observed a

disproportionately large period of time at the point of

instruction and demonstration. The child would be more likely

to engage in independent activity on subsequent exposure to the

materials. (Table 13, see page 100).

Thus, recognizing the problems att....1dant upon interpretation

of this category, we may accept as a positive indication of

sustained interest a proportion of 35% and over of the total time

of observation of the interaction with the materials spent in

independent activity with the materials.

While the Gross Motor activities are very poor in holding

interest, many of the Sensory-Motor tasks and Conceptualization

activities work well.

The percentages of behavioral components of Inattention

are reported in Table 14 (see page 101). It should be

remembered that this is a measure of the child's interest while

vorking with the teacher. As the literature indicates (Blank

and Solomon, 1968), one should expect that one-to-one contact

will heighten interest with any activity. There are some

indications that the children were less attentive to selected

145

activities: in particular, Balancing, Throwing, Rhythmic

Movement, Conceptualization-One Attribute and Conceptualization-

Two Attributes. In general, the percentages here are a direct

inverse of the percentages in Interest.

b. Observers' General Ratings

The observers requested that they be able to

rate the materials on a three-level scale upon completion of

a session. The variables upon which they rated each activity

were:

AttentionAmount of DemonstrationEase of Manipulation

The frequencies with which they rated each

activity are presented in Tables 15,16,17, see pp.102-109. Because

there were too few general ratings for each activity, Chi

Square Tests were not run; however, the frequencies at the

scale levels are presented for inspection.

The low total frequencies of response ire to

be expected since the observers were present for only one -half

day and, therefore, did not have the opportunity to rate a

large number of childnll on the sahle task. Such frequency

size dictates that we indicate imp'ications of the results

only with great caution.

From the greater frequency of responses

within the negative rating (see Appendix C'. pages 131

through 133). It seems apparent that the observer

view the level of attention, amount of demonstration

and ease of manipulation as somewhat less acceptable than the

teachers. Their ratings at completion of the task differ

noticeably from the percentages of behavior recorded on the

)46 rit

observation schedules at 7-second time in`ervals. If we

consider Interest aid Attention as manifestations in the

same general areas of behavior (Appendix C, see pages 131

through 133), then this difference indicates some ambivalence

of response. Peculiarly, the observers' recordings, descriptions

of behavior at the time of occurrence (Tables 12, 13 and 14, see

pages 99 through 101) bear greater similarity to the Teachers'

Ratings (Tables 6 through 11, see pages 65 through 98).

This may well be the result of the fact that

on the three-level Rating Scale the observers are rating on the

basis of only a small sample of the child's total behavior. The

teacher, on the other hand, is using the entire range of the

child's behavior on the tasks after a number of presentations.

This may explain the disparity between Observers' Ratings and

Teachers! Ratings; the reasons for the apparent relationship

between the recorded behavior and the Teachers' Ratings is

more difficult to explain. We should like to believe that the

sensitivity of the categories upon which the recordings of the

behavioral situations were based is such that it provided a

good indication of the overall response of the child in the

complete period of task activity. This is quite a presumptuous

expectation however; most likely the lack of correlation

between the positive Observers' Recording:, positive Teachers'

Ratings and the negative Observers' Ratings is the result of a

combination of variables. Among these may be the fact that

the teachers' expectation for the optimal behavior level of

her child is set lower, in concert with her familiarity of

the child's behavioral repertoire.

It7

r:

4. Observers' Comments

One might have expected that their diversified.

background would result in a very different set of

recommendations for the program from the observers as compared

with those obtained from the participating teachers. Sur-

prisingly, they covered many of the same points as the teachers

in their personal reports.

We report here additional ones that might be of

general interest.

a, Gross Motor tasks should be tied to cognitive

tasks such as attention and rule behavior to hold the interest

of the child (e.g., the child must jump when a green circle

appears, hop when a red square appears, etc.)

b. Sequences of discrimination tasks must

progress in very gradual steps from simple forms to more complex.

including picture forms that represent real objects.

c. The instrucional materials must be made more

durable to withstand the wear anA tear of active use by the

children.

B. The Relationshi Between Teachers' Ratings and Observers'

litLankirlEa

It became apparent. upon inspection of the Teachers'

Ratings and the percentages of recorded behavior by the

observers, that there were similarities between both sources

of evaluation on the Interest Level of the materials. In order

to Obtain a more precise descripti(n of this relationship.

correlations were computed between the Teachers' Ratings of

w:t

the Interest Level of an individual child and the percentage

of behavior categorized under Interest that was recorded on

the Observation Schedule for the same child. Such correlations

were run on all activities where there was a sufficiently large

number of Teachers' Ratings and Observation Schedules for the

same children on the same activity.

The results of this analysis are reported in Table 18(3ee

page 110). There is a very clear indication of a relationship

between the interest behavior recorded by the observer and the

interest level as rated by the teacher. Indeed, the correlations

of the measures on Seriation, Memory, Sensory-Motor Integration-

Peg Board and the Classification -bne Attribute are quite high

for measures obtained from such different instruments. Because

the instruments are so different, the correlations of .50-.60

on Association, Sensory-Motor Integration-Beading and Peg Board

Connecting dots and Jumping activities may be considered

fairly respectable.

Apparently, the evaluation of both teachers and observers

reflect similar reactions to the child's responses to the

materials.

C. Tests

The results of the administration of the CREED Test Battery

are reported in Tables 19 through 21 (see pages 111 and 112).

Comparison with the results of the CREED 3 project are possible

only for sub-tests 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 for the older age groups.

Analyses of the results of the CREED 3 project dicttted that

certain modifications be made for maximum reliability and

49

validity; thus, these sub-tests differ from those in the

original battery.

As one might expect, means and standard deviations

compare quite favorably. This is most encouraging in view

of the fact that the tests were administered by examiners

unfamiliar to the children.

The only dramatic difference appears to be in the

performance of the 7- through 8-year-old special children,

whose scores on the Form-Copying Test (low score denoting

superior performance) and on the Target Test are superior

to those of-the CREED 3 group.

50

t',0#

TABLE

5*

Teacher Evaluation of Materials

Rating Scale Level

A: Difficulty in Communication of Instructions

Very Easy to Explain

Often Difficult to Explain

Not Able to Get Idea Across

Gross Motor

Jumping

Hopping

Balancing

Throwing

AN

=18

BN=19

CN

=19

DN

=16

AN

-=18

BN=18

AN=15

BN

=16

CN-13

DN=14

EN=8

AN=20

BN=16

.89

.o6

.05

.84

.11

.05

.79

.11

.10

.62

.38

.00

.83

.11

.o6

.61

.22

.17

.87

.07

.06

.88

.06

.o6

.61

.31

.o8

.86

.07

.o7

.75

.00

.25

-95

.05

.00

.62

.38

.0C

Rating Scale Level

A: Difficulty in Communication of Instructions

Gross Motor

Attention

Memory

Rhythmical

Immediate

Movement

Focusing

Recognition

AB

AB

AB

AB

CD-i-E

F-i-C-

N=11

N=11

N=20

N=20

N=20

N =19

N=12

N=12

N=12

N=11

N=9

Very Easy to Explain

.91

.91

-35

.55

.65

.58

.67

.92

.75

.64

.89

Often Difficult to Explain

.09

.09

.10

.40

.30

.32

.33

.08

.25

.36

.77_

Not Able to Get Idea Across

.00

.00

.05

.05

.05

.10

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

continued)

See Appendix A for complete list of specific activities.

i.

TABLE 5 (continued)

Rating Scale Level

A: Difficulty in Communication of Instructions

Very Easy to Explain

Often Difficult to Explain

Not Able to Get Idea Across

Visual Analysis

Sensory Motor Integration

AN=17

BN=J7

CN

=16

DN=17

IN=-17

FN=17

Body

Awareness

Beading and

Pegboard

Clothespin and

Hole Punch

N-19

AN=18

BN=20 N=19

AN=17

N=1

N-16

1.00

.00

.00

.o6

.00

.81

.19

.

.82

.12

.o6

.71

.23

.06

.70

.18 2

.79

.11

.10

.66

.28

.06

-751

.25

.00

.53

.42

.82

.12

.06

.80

.2C;

nn

.75

.25

.0C

\-fl Rating Scale Level

rx)

A: Difficulty in Communication 6TTELiL,ructions

Very Easy to Explain

Often Difficult to Explain

Not Able to Get Idea Across

Sensory Motor Integration

Conceptualization

Channel Drawing

Connecting Dots

Association

One Attribute

AN=17

BN=21

CN=21

DN-21

N= 21

AN=19

BN=19

N=18

AN= 20

AiB

N=21 'N=20:N=20

.LJ

N=20 cN-,1-

.88

.12

.00

.95

.05

.00

1.00

.00

.00

1.00

.00

.00

1.0C

.00

.0C

.89

.11

.00

.95

.05

.00

.89

.11

.00

.90

.10

.00

.86

.14

.00

.90

.55

.10

.45

.00

.00

.50

.56

.05

..D,-7)

continued

TABLE 5 (continued)

Rating Scale Level

A: Difficulty in Communication of Instructions

Very Easy to Explain

Often Difficult to Explain

Not Able to Ge'.. Idea Across

Conceptualization

Two

Attributes

Single

Classification

Seriation-Size

AN=16

BN=15

AN=12

BN-13

CN =14

DN-15

AN-16

B1\1,-15

C

N=15

DN=15

N =15N=15

.44

.56

.00

.6o

.4o

.00

.92

.08

.00

.92

.08

.00

1.00

.00

.00

.93

.07

.00

.50

.50

.00

.53

.47

.00

.6o

.40

.00

.6o

.33

.07

.53

.4o

.07

.47

.46

.07

Rating Scale Level

A: Difficulty in Communication of Instructions

Conceptualization

Seration-Number

AN=-11

BN--11

CN=10

DN-10

EN-10

FN----10

Very Easy to Explain

.64

.55

.90

.90

.90

.90

Often Difficult to Explain

.36

-LL5

.10

.10

.10

.00

Not Able to Get Idea Across

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.10

(continued)

TABLE 5 (continued)

Rating Scale Level

B: Relevance to Class Objectives

Highly Related

Some Relation

No Relation

Gross Motor

Attention

Jumping

N=19

Hopping

N=18

Balancing

N=16

Throwing

N= 20

Rhythmic

Movement

N=11

Focusing

N =21

Immediate

Recognition

N=20

.47

.53

.00

.39

.55

.o6

.50

.50

.00

.40

.55

.05

.27

.64

.09

.43

.52

.05

.45

.4o .15

Rating Scale Level

B: Relevance to Class Objectives

Highly Related

Some Relation

No Relation

Memory

N=12

Visual

Analysis

N=19

Sensory Motor Integration

Body

Awareness

N=19

Manipulation

N=20

Clothespin and

Hole Punch

N=19

Channel

Drawing

N=21

Connecting

Dots N=19

.83

.17

.00

.63

.32

.05

.16

.37

.47

.45

.50

.05

.21

.58

.21

.29

.66

.05

.37

.63

.00

(continued)

TABLE

5(continued)

Rating Scale Level

B: Relevance to Class Objectives

Conceptualization

Association

N= 21

One

Attribute

N=18

Two

Attributes

Single

Classification

N=15

Seri ation

Size

N=15

Numoer

N=12

Highly Related

.62

.50

.31

.4o

.47

.33

Some Relation

.33

.50

.63

.53

.67

No Relation

.05

.00

.06

.07

.07

.00

Rating Scale Level

C: Level of Interest to Teacher

Very Interesting

Interesting

Lacking in Interest

Gross Motor

Attention

Jumping

N=19

Hopping

N=18

Balancing

N=16

Throwing

N=20

Rhythmic

Movement

N=11

Focusing

N-21

Immediate

Recognition

N=20

.37

.58

.05

.17

.83

.00

.31

.69

.00

.20

.8o

.00

.18

.82

.00

.33

.57

.10

.4o

.55

.05

(cortinued)

TABLE 5 (continued)

Rating Scale Level

C: Level of Interest to Teacher

Very Interesting

Interesting

Lacking in Interest

Memory

N=13

Visual

Analysis

N=20

Sensory :)tor Integration

Body

Awareness

N=19

Manipulation

N=20

Clothespin and

Hole Punch

N=19

Channel

Drawing

N=21

Connecting

DotsN=9

.69

.31

.00

.30

.60

.10

.05

.53

.42

.15

.70

.15

.26

.53

.21

.-_,G

.62

.19

.16

.74

.10

Rating Scale Level

:Level of Interest to Teacher

Conceptualization

Association

One

Attribute

Two

Attributes

Single

Classification

St!,-iaton

Size

i:.umber

N= 21

N=19

N=16

N=16

N=16 I

N-11

Very Interesting

.57

.11

.25

.06

.44

.27

Interesting

.38

-79

.56

.81

.37

.73

Lacking in Interest

.05

.10

.19

.12

.19

.00

(continued)

TABLE 5 (continued)

MIP

Rating Scale Level

D: Reaction to Amount of Items

Too Many

Sufficient

Not Enough

Gross Motor

Attention

Jumping

N=19

Hopping

N-18

Balancin

N=16

Throwing

N=18

Rhythmic

Movement

N,21

Focusing

N=20

Immediate

Recognition

N=20

.05

.84

.11

.06

.83

.11

.19

.75

.o6

.11

. 7 2

.17

.00

-73

.27

.10

.6o

.30

.10

..50

.4o

Rating Scale Level

D: Reaction to Amount of Items

Too Many

Sufficient

Not Enough

Memory

N=13

Visual

Analysis

N=20

Sensory Motor Integration

Body

Awareness

N=18

Manipulation

N=20

Clothespin and

Hole Punch

N=18

Channel

Drawing

N=21

Connecting

Dots

N=19

.13

.69

.23

.20

.55

.20

.00

.44

.56

.05

.65

.30

.17

.44

.39

.19

.57

.24

.16

.74

.10

continued

TABLE

5(continued)

Rating Scale Lew

D: Reaction to Amount of Items

Conceptualization

Association

N= 20

One

Attribute

N=19

Two

Attributes

N=14

Single

'ssification

N=15

Seriation

Size

N=16

Numoer

N=12

Too Many

.10

.21

.29

.20

.31

.00

Sufficient

.75

.58

.50

.6o

.5o

.75

Not Enough

.15

.21

.21

.20

.19

.25

Rating Scale Level

E: Amounf of Time Required to Carry Out Sequence

Gross Motor

Attention

Jumping

N=19

Hopping

N=18

Balancing

N=15

Throwing

N= 20

Rhythmic

Movement

N-10

Focusing

N=20

Immediate

Recognition

N-20

Less than

5Minutes

.00

.00

.00

.05

.00

.00

.05

5-10 Minutes

.11

.33

.13

.20

.20

.20

.20

10-20 Minutes

.37

. 22

.33

.35

.50

.25

.35

20-30 Minutes

.26

.28

.27

.30

. 20

.45

.30

More than 2 Hour

.26

.17

.27

.10

.10

.10

.10

(continued)

TABLE 5 (continued)

Rating Scale Level

E: Amount of Time Required to Carry Out Sequence

Memory

N=11

Visual

Analysis

N=20

.Sensory Motor Integration

Body

Awareness

N=17

Manipulation

N=20

Clothespin and

Hole Punch

N=18

Channel

Drawing

N=21

Connecting

Dots

N=19

Less than 5 Minutes

5-10 Minutes

10-20 Minutes

20 -30 Minutes

More than 2 Hour

.00

.09

.55

.09

.27

.00

.00

.35

.15

.50

.24-

.29

.24

.24-

.00

.00

.10

.25

.30

.35

.00

.22

.39

.22

.17

.00

.l4-

.48

.33

.05

.05

.21

.32

.42

.00

Rating Scale Level

E: Amount of Time Required to Carry Out Sequence

Conceptualization

Association

One

Attribute

Two

Attributes

Single

Seriation

Classification

Size

Number

N=21

N=18

N=15

N=14

N=16

N=12

Less than 5 Minutes

.114

.00

.07

.07

.00

.08

5-10 Minutes

.28

.06

.13

.36

.06

.17

10-20 Minutes

.29

.39

.20

.21

.06

.25

20-30 Minutes

.24

.22

.4o

.29

.38

.25

More than 17 Hour

.05

-33

.20

.07

.50

.25

(continued)

TABLE 5 (continued)

Rating Scale Level

F: Ease of Manipulation by Teacher

Gross Motor

Attention

Rhythmic

Immediate

Jumping

Hopping

Balancing

Throwing

Movement

Focusing

Recognition

N=19

N=17

N=16

N-19

N=11

N-21

N =20

Very Easy

.63

.76

.69

.95

.73

.81

.85

Somewhat Difficult

.26

.18

.25

.05

.27

.14

.10

Very

and

.11

.06

.06

.00

.00

.05

.05

Rating Scale Level

F: Ease of Manipulation 1'v Teacher

Very Easy

Somewhat Difficult

Very Hard

Memory

N =13

Visual

Analysis

N=19

Sensory 1,:otor Integration

Body

Awareness

N=19

Manipulation

N=20

Clothespin and

Hole Punch

N=19

Channel

Drawing

N=21

Connecting

Dots

N=19

.84

.05

.11

.55

.40

.C5

.63

.26

.11

.66

.24

.10

.63

.32

.05

(continued)

TABLE 5 (continued)

Rating Scale ,evel

: Ease of Manipulation by Teacher

Conceptualization

Association

N=21

One

Attribute

N=18

iTwo

Attributes

N=15

Single

Classification

N=16

Seriation

Size

N=16

Number

N=12

Very Easy

.90

.61

.50

.81

.31

.82

Somewhat Difficult

.10

.28

.19

.19

.56

.18

Very Hard

.00

.11

.31

.00

.13

.00

Rahn, Scale Level

G: maintaininr7 Materials

Materials Remained Intact

Some Items Msplaced or

Damaged

Most Items Misplaced or

Damaged

ross 1.0 or

Atten ion

Jumping

N=18

Hopping

N=I7

Balancing

N=16

Throwing

N= 20

Hnytnmic

Movement

N=11

Focusing

N=20

Immediate

Recognition

N=20

.72

.22

.o6

.88

.o6

.o6

.88

.06

.o6

.90

.05

.05

1.00 .0

0

.00

.8o

.10

.10

.90

.10

.00

(continued7----

TABLE 5 (continued)

Rating Scaic Level

G:

Taintaining Materials

__

Materials Remained

Intact

Some Items Misplaced

or Damaged

Most Items Misplaced

or Damaged

Memory

N=13

Visual

Analysi-

17=19

Sensory Motor Integration.

.0oy

Awareness

N=19

Manipulation

N=20

.Lot-espin an.

Hole Punch

N=18

Channel

Drawing

N=21

ce -ecting

Dot-_;

7=10

.23

.00

.84

.16

.00

.74

.16

.10

.8o

.15

.05

.89

.06

.05

.81

.14

.05

.74

.26

.00

ON

Rating Scale Level

G: Maintaining Materials

0ft,

Conceptualization

Association

N=21

One

Attribute

N=19

Two

Attributes

N=16

Single

Classification

N=16

Seriation

Size

N=16

Number

N,12

Materials Remained

Intact

.86

.89

.88

.81

.75

1.00

Some Items Misplaced

or Damaged

.14

.11

.12

.19

.25

.00

Most Items Misplaced

or Damaged

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

=01

1/

(continued)

TAB= 5 (continued)

Rating Scale Level

H: Storage

Gross Motor

Attention

Jumping

N.19

Hopping

N,16

Balancing

N=16

Throwin

N=20

Rhythmic

Movement

N=11

Focusing

N=21

Immediate

Recognition

N=20

No Difficulty

.47

.63

.44

.3o

.91

.90

.85

Some Difficulty

.53

.25

.38

.20

.09

.10

.15

Very Difficult

.00

.12

.13

.00

.00

.00

.00

Rating Scale

01 t.4Level

No Difficulty

Some Difficulty

Very Difficult

Hz Storage

Memory

N=13

Visual

Analysis

N=-19

Sensor. Motor Integration

Sensor.

5Ody

Awareness

N=19

Manipulation

N=20

Clothespin and

Hole Punch

N=19

Channel

Drawing

N=21

Connecting

Dcts

N=19

.85

.74

.95

.55

.69

.67

.79

.15

.26

.00

.4o

.26

.33

.21

.00

.00

.05

.05

.05

.00

.00

(continued)

TABLE 5 (continued)

Rating Scale Level

H: Storage

Conceptualization

Association

N=21

One

Attribute

N=19

Two

Attributes

N=16

Single

Classification

N=16

Seriation

Size

N=16

Number

N=12

No Difficulty

.95

.724

.75

.75

.63

.92

Some Difficulty

.05

.21

.13

.25

.31

.08

Very Difficult

.00

.05

.12

.00

.o6

.00

TABLE 6

Frequency Teachers' Responses to Items on Rating Forms for theEvaluation of Individual Children: Interest

Item

Gross Motor- Jumping

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

7-8Special X.2 **

Jumping with Locomotion 1+2 32 1234.4+5 14 0 3.30

Jumping from a Height 1+2 36 123+45 9 0 1.511

Jumping Over an Obstacle 1+2 36 123+4+5 9 0 1.54

Rhythmical Jumping 1+2 34 133+4+5 9 0 1.88

Gross Motor - Balancing

Item Rating 5-6 7-8Scale Level* Special Special X2**

On the Ground 1+2 33 834-45 11 0 1.26

Dn 4-Inch Side 1+2 38 93+445 7 1 0.00

Over Obstacles 1+2 31 103+4+5 6 0 0.69

Tilted 1+2 83+4+5 1 1 0.06

)n 2-Inch Side 1+23+4+5

132

1

1.37

,_...--

*Set Appendix B for description of scale levels.**)(.05=3.841

65

cont nued

TABLE 6 (continued)

Item

Gross Motor-Hopping

RatingScale Level

5-Special

7-8Special X2 **

Forward Locomotion

Over a Raised Obstacle

1+23+4+5

1+23+145

3611

3310

130

80

2.33

1.07

ItemMotor - ThrowingGross Motor-Throwing

RatingScale Level*

1+23+4+5

1+23+145

5 -b

Special

399

238

Special170

72 G

.-.....

2-**

2.30

0s05

Stationary Position

Moving Position

Item

Gross Motor-Rhythmic Movement

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

1-8Special -x2-**

Stationary Objects

Rotary Objects

1+23+4+5

1+23+4+5

244

27

3

20

2o

0.25

0.61

Attention-Focusing

Item RatingScale Level'

r)-9Special

7-3Special '2"

Brief Exposure

Tracking

1+23+4+5

1+23+4,5

4210

4010

15

3

162

0.01

0.24

(continued)

66

TABLE 6 (continued)

Attention-Immediate RecognitionItem

Slap-Jack

Hand Raising

Rating 5-6 7-8Scale Level* Special Special

1+23+4+5

1+23+445

407

358

ItemMemory

171

161

2**

0.36

0.71

Rating 1 5-6Scale Leve,..* I Special

7-8Special 2**

Recall Beading-3 DimensionalPattern

Recall Hole Punching-Sequence

Recall Cardboard Box-Location

Recall Forms and Pictures-Changed Location

Reproduction-Forms and Pictures

1+23+4+5

24

1+2 333+4+5 2

1+2 293+4+5 11

1+23+4+5

217

1+2 223+4+5 8

67

121

160

161

110

0.61

0.04

2.18

1.87

110 2.1.4

(continued)

TABLE 6 (continued)

ItemVisual Analysis

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

7-81 .1 -)ecial

,> **

3 Dimensions-3 Objects 1+2 39 173+4+5 8 0 1.93

3 Dimensions-4+ Objects' 1+2 4C 183+4+5 7 0 1.66

2 Dimensions-3 Objects- 1+2 37 16Pictures 3+4+5 4 0 0.52

2 Dimensions-4+ Objects'- 1+2 36 15Pictures 3+4+5 4 0 0.48

2 Dimensions-Printed Forms- 1+2 36 20

3-5 Objects 3+4+5 8 2 0.37

2 Dimensions-Printed Forms- 1+2 24 1861- Objects' 3+445 8 2 0.95

Sensory Motor Integration-Body AwarenessItem Rating 5-6 7-8 1

Scale Level* Special. Special Xx*

General 1+2 39 183+4+5 12 0 3.62

Sensory Moto' Integration-Mani ulationItem Rating 5-6 7

Scale Level* Soecial S.ecial 124*

Beacling 1+2 3g 123+4+5 0 1.45

Pegboard-Simple Pattern 1+2 36 153+4+5 9 0 2.14

Pegboard-Complex Pattern 1+23+ 4 5

3g 150 2.01

1 3+ means 3 or more.4+ means 4 or more.6+ means 6 or more.

68

continue

TABLE 6 (continued)

Item

Sensory Motor Integration - ManipulationClothespin and Hole Punch

RatingScale Levelx

5-6Special

7-8Siecial X2

Clothespins 1+2 37 6344F5 6 0 0.10

Hole Punch-2 Holes 112 31 123+4+5 5 0 0.67

Hole Punch-3+ Holes' 1+2 31 133+4+5 5 0 0.78

Sensory Motor integration-Channel Drawing

Item Rating 5-6 7-8Scale Lever Special Special N?"

Chalkboard 1+2 33 8

3+4+5 9 0 0.89

Straight Line -1 Inch 1+2 39 14

3+445 0 1.45

Straight Line- 1+2 38 14

Less than 1 Inch 1+415 8 0 1.51

Curve-1 Inch 1+2 38 14

3+4+5 8 0 1.51

Curve-Less than 1 Inch 1+2 36 143+4+5 10 0 2.26

continue

69

TABLE 6 (continued)

Item

Sensory Motor Integration-Connecting Dots

RatingScale Level

5-6Special

7-8Special -2

IL

1-Inch Intervals 1+2 38 143+4+5 9 0 1.81

2-Inch Intervals 1+2 37 143+4+5 9 0 2.87

6-Inch Intervals 1+2 36 14344+5 9 0 1.94

Conceptualization-Association

Item Rating 5-6 7-8Scale Level'', Special

43

Special

14

1.24

3 Pairs 1+23+4+5 5 0 0 49

6+ Pairs' 1+2 42 17314+5 4 1 0.01

Conceptualization-Classification-One At.fributeItem Rating 5-6 7-8

Scale Level,' Special Special 'X?"

3 Dimensions- Color 1+2 46 183+4+5 6 1 2.04

3 Dimensions-Size 1+2 itil 17344+5 0 1.70

2 Dimensions-Size 1+2 4o 113+4+5 8 0 0.94

2 Dimensions-Shape 1+2 123+4+5 5 0 0.45

continued)

70

TABLE 6 (continued)

Item

Conceptualization-Classification-Two Attributes

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

;-8Special X2 **

4 Items 1+2 22 13

.3+4+5 3 0 0.44

6 Items 1+2 18 113+4+5 3 0 0.46

Concestualization-Sinple ClassificationItem Rating 5-g 7-8

Scale Level* Special Special X2**

3 Dimensions-2 Classes 1+2 17 113+4+5 6 0 1.92

3 Dimensions-3+ Classes 1+2 19 113 +14 +5 6 0 1.68

2 Dimensions-2 Classes 1+2 22 133+4+5 6 o 1.77

2 Dimensions-34 Classesl 1+2 24 133+445 6 0 1.58

Item.__rmrig7y.r.Concetualization-Seriation-Size

Scale Level* Special Special V"3 Dimensions-3 Objects 1+2 35 21

3f4+5 6 0 i.94

3 Dimensions-4+ Objects1 142 35 213 +14+5 5 i 1 0.32

2 Wmensions-3 Objects 142 32 203+4+5 4 0 1.01

2 Dimensions-4+ Objects 1+2 32 203+4+5 14 0 1.01

Pictured Objects- 1+2 30 193 Objects 3+4+5 6 0 2.05

Pictured Objects- 1+2 31 15'4+ Objects-4 3+4+5 4 0 0.63

71

TABLE 7

Frequency of Teachers, Responses to Items on Rating Forms for theEvaluation of Individual Children: Sustained Interest

Item

Jumping with Locomotion

Jumping From a Height

Jumping Over an Obstacle

Rhythmical Jumping;

Item

On the Ground

On 4-Inch Side

Over Obstacles

Tilted

On 2-Inch Side

Gross Motor-JumpingRating 5-6

1

1 7-8Scale Level* Special Special

1+23+44-5

1+23+4+5

1+23+4+5

1+23+4+5

2119

2815

2317

2).

18

66

36

56

56

.N.2"

0.03

1.94

0.14

0.02

Gross Motor-Ba ancinRating 5-6

Scale Level* Special Special x

1+23+4+5

1+23+4+5

1+23+4+5

1+23+4+5

1+23+4+5

2412

28

2112

2013

96

'Se2 Appendix B for description of scale levels."IC .05=3.841

72

22 0.01

3

3 0.36

4

3 0.01

42 0.03

1

0 0.07

(continue

TABLE 7 (continued)

ItemGross Motor-Hopping

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

7-8Special V**

Forward Locomotion 1+2 23 113+4+5 15 2 1.56

Over a Raised Obstacle 1+2 21 43+4+5 13 8 1.86

Gross Motor-Tnro7ingItem Rating 5-6 7-8

Scale Level* Special Special X2**

Stationary Position 1+2 33 93+4:5 11 8 1.85

Moving Position 1+2 23 83+4+5 4 7 3.55

Gross Motor-Rhythmic MovementItem Rating

Scale Level*5-6

Special7-8'

Special X2 **V**

Stationary Objects 1+2 :'.3 2

3+4A5 14 0 0.47

Rotary Objects 1+2 15 23+4+5 14 0 0.35

Attention-Focus___11___77__Item Talng - 7-

Scale Level* Special Special X2 **

Brief Exposure 1+2 37 123+145 13 6 0.08

Tracking 1+2 40 123+4+5 9 6 0.95

continue

73

TABLE 7 (continued)

Itemen on- mme a

5-6e Recogn

7-8on

RatingScale Level* Special Special 2**

Slap-Jack 1+2 33 103+45 7 6 1.57

Hand Raising 1+2 13 93+4+5 4 6 0.39

---Remory ....1.Item Rating 5-6

Scale Level* Special Special 1(2**

Recall Beading- 1+2 27 103-Dimensional Pattern 3+4+5 6 2 0.10

Recall Hole Punching-Sequence 1+2 22 143+14+5 1 0 0.06

Recall Cardboard Box-Location 1+23+4+5

238

142 0.46

Recall Forms and Pictures- 1+2 21 7Changed Location +4+5 2 2 0.20

Reproduction-Forms and Pictures 1+2 26 93+14+5 2 2 0.19

74

(continue

TABLE 7 (continued)

Item RafThgScale Level*

Visual Analysis7 -8

Special X2 **5-6

Special

3 Dimensions-3 Objects

3 Dimensions-4+ Objects'

2 Dimensions-3 Objects-Pictures

1+23+145

1+23+4+5

1+23+4+5

2 Dimensions-4+ Objects-1 1+2Pictures 3+4+5

2 Dimensions-Printed Forms- 1+23-5 Objects 3+4+5

2 DI.mensionsTPrinted Forms- 1+26+ Objects' 3+4+5

3014

3010

34

7

316

3010

2410

95

105

105

95

146

126

0.00

0.08

0.89

1.28

0.01

0.00

Sensory Motor Integration-Body AwarenessItem Rating 5-6

Scale Level* Special Special 2N.**

General 1+23+4+5

Item

Beading

Pegboard-Simple Pattern

Pegboard-Complex Pattern

30

9180 3.35

Sensory Motor Integration - ManipulationRating 5-6 7-b

Scale Level*t Special Special

1+23+4+5

1+23+45

1+23+4+5

2813

3510

2714

93

112

122

2x**

0.01

0.02

1.15

1 3+ means 3 or more.4+ means 4 or more.6+ means 6 or more.

75

(continued)

TABLE 7 (continued)

Item

ensory 'o or n.egra on -'an pu a onClothespin and Hole Punch-?

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

7-8Special X

2**

Clothespins 1+2 35 6

3+4+5 8 0 0.32

Hole Punch-2 Holes 1+2 30 73+4+5 6 0 0.32

Hole Punch-3+ Holesl 1+2 28 83+4+5 7 0 0.72

ensory 'o or n egra on- anne craw ngItem 'Rating 5-6 7-8

Scale Level* Special Special 1..2 **

Chalkboard 1+2 34 63+4+5 9 2 0.04

Straight Line-1 Inch 1+2 37 113+4+5 9 3 0.05

Straight Line-Less than 1 Inch 1+2 37 113+4+5 9 3 0.05

Curve-1 Inch 1+2 37 113+4+5 9 3 0.05

Curve-Less than 1 Inch 1+2 36 113+4+5 10 3 0.12

Sensory Motor Integratron-Connecting DotsItem Rating 5-6 7-8

Scale Level* Special Special .X2**

1-Inch Intervals 1+2 37 11

3+4+5 8 1 0.12

2-Inch Intervals 1+2 37 113+4+5 8 1 0.12

6-Inch Intervals 1+2 36 113+4+5 8 1 0.14

_....... continue

76

TABLE 7 (continued)

ItemSpecial Special V**

gon_p56mcetualization-Assocationa n

Scale Level*

3 Pairs

6+ Pairsl

1+23+4+5

1+23+4+5

Conceptualization--Classification-One

358

.?5

6

131

171

Attribute

0.36

0.31

Item Rating 5-b 7-bScale Level* Special Special %2 **

3 Dimensions-Color 1+2 41 163+4+5 10 0 2.30

3 Dimensions-Size 1+2 4o 16

3+4+5 10 0 2.38

2 Dimensions-Size 1+2 30 103+4+5 12 0 2.28

2 Dimensions-Shape 1+2 30 8

3+4+5 10 0 1.24

Conceptualization - Classification -Two AttributesItem Rating 5-6 7-8

Scale Level* Special Special 14:.2 **

4 Items 1+2 9 83+4+5 2 3 0.00

6 Items 1+2 9 6

3+4+5 2 3 0.07

Conceptualization - Single ClassificationItem Rating 5-b 7-8

Scale Level* Special Special 1C2*Y

3 Dimensions-2 Classes 1+2 10 93+4+5 7 0 3.20

3 Dimensions-3+ Classesl 1+2 12 93+4+5 7 0 2.68

2 Dimensions-2 Classes 1+2 19 113+4+5 8 0 2.54

2 Dimensions-3+ Classes1 1+2 20 11

3+4+5 9 0 2.8o

continued

77

TABLE 7 (continued)

Item

oncep ua za on- er a ion- ze

7:8---Special

18

RatingScale Level*

5-bSpecial X2**

3 Dimensions-3 Objects 1+2 283+4+5 8 1 1.52

3 Dimensions -44- Objects' 1+2 31 18

3+4+5 8 2 0.43

2 Dimensions-3 Objects 1+2 25 163+4+5 8 1 1.47

2 Dimensions-4+ Objects' 1+2 24 163+4+5 9 1 2.01

Pictured Objects-3 Objects 1+2 19 143+4+5 9 2 1.18

Pictured Objects-4+ Objects' 1+2 20 103+4+5 7 1 0.51

78

TABLE 8

Frequency of Teachers' Responses to Items on Rating Forms for theEvaluation of Individual Children:Amount of Demonstration Required

ItemGross Motor-Jumping

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

7-8Special 10**

Jumping with Locomotion 1 29 122+3+4+5 16 0 4.30

Jumping from a Height 1 36 122+3+4+5 9 0 1.54

Jumping Over an Obstacle 1 29 92+3+4+5 5 1 0.02

Rhythmical Jumping 1 24 122+3+4+5 20 1 4.63

Gross Motor-BalancingItem Rating 5-6 7-8

Scale Level* Special Special 2**

On the Ground 1 30 72+3+4+5 14 1 0.47

On 4-Inch Side 1 25 72+3+4+5 20 1 1.72

Over Obstacles 1 15 102+3+4+5 22 0 8.92

Tilted 1 25 102+3+4+5 12 0 2.82

On 2-Inch Side 1 8 12+3+4+5 8 0 0.00

*See Appendix B for description of scale levels.** 2 o5 = 3 841x . - .

79

rn ,....7=nr=2:11=1TWAlacinwm.".`

continued

TABLE 8 (continued)

ItemGross

-7-73.-

Special *X2**

2.58

0.00

RatingScale Level*

I 5-6Special

Forward Locomotion

Over a Raised Obstacle

1

2+3+4+5

12+3+4+5

3311

2218

13o

53

Itemross To or-T row ng

X2**

2.64

7.58

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

3414

724

Motor-Rhythmic

7-8Special.

161

55

Movement

Stationary Position

Moving Position

1

2+3+4+5

1

2+3+4+5

Itemcross

RatingScale Level*

1

2+3+4+5

1

2+3+4+5

5-6Soecial

217

246

7-bSpecial.

20

2o

x2**

0.00

o.05

Stationary Objects

Rotary Objects

Itemen on- ocusing

X.2**

2.79

0.15

RatingScale Level*

1

2+3+4+5

1

2+3+4+5

5-6Special

3022

2624

7-8Special

153

117

Brief Exposure

Tracking

80

:11111r1G.=entt /...W tars.5101111.11Kr- .lontailL=ALAwIPTIrlr.nomtMMWP""-"4"r."'"'""

TABLE 8 (continued)

Item

Attention-Immediate RecolnitionRating

Scale Level*5 -.

Siecial7-8

S ecial 1(.2**

Slap-Jack 1 21 112+3+4+5 26 7 0.82

Hand Raising 1 24 92+3+4+5 19 8 0.01

MemoryItem Rating 5 -. 7-:

Scale Level* Special Special V**

Recall Beading- 1 10 73-Dimensional Pattern 2+3+4+5 26 6 3.83

Recall Hole Punching- 1 19 13

Sequence 2+3+4+5 12 2 1.99

Recall Cardboard Box- 1 18 10

Location 2+3+4+5 21 6 0.65

Recall Forms and Pictures- 1 10 8

Changed Location 2+3+4+5 18 3 2.99

Reproduction- 1 17 7Forms and Pictures 2+3+4+5 14 4 0.02

continued

81

TABLE 8 (continued)

Item

Visual AnalysisRating

Scale Level*5-6

Special7-8

Special V**

3 Dimensions-3 Objects 1 29 102+3+4+5 15 0 3.17

3 Dimensions-4+ Objectsl 1 28 112+3+4+5 15 0 3.72

2 Dimensions-3 Objects- 1 26 17

Pictures 2+3+4+5 15 0 6.59

2 Dimensions-4+ Objects? 1 28 16

Pictures 2+3+4+5 13 0 4.89

2 Dimensions-Printed Forms- 1 19 18

3-5 Objects 2+3+4+5 26 4 7.84

2 Dimensions-Printed Forms- 1 22 16

6+ Objectsl 2+3+4+5 13 4 1.04

Sensory Motor Integration-Body AwarenessItem Rating 5-6 7-8

Scale Level* Sperlal Special X.

General 1 31 162+3+4+5 19 2 3.31

--Sensory Motor rntegrati n-Manipula ion

Item Rating 5-6 7-8Scale Level* Special Special X?"

Beading 1 28 102+3+4+5 13 2 0.43

Pegboard-Simple Pattern 1 24 122+3+4+5 21 3 2.32

Pegboard-Complex Pattern 1 23 122+3+4+5 18 3 1.76

13+ means 3 or more.4+ means 4 or more.6+ means 6 or more.

82

it''1=1;ifarrAi-=+A+&

continue

TABLE.8 (continued)

Item

Sensory Motor Integration-ManipulationClothespin and Hole Punch

r=8--Soeclal

RafingScale Level*

3-6S.ecial

,X.'*

Clothespins 1 25 62+3+4+5 18 0 2.37

Hole Punch-2 Holes 1 17 112+3+4+5 24 1 7.48

Hole Punch-3+ Holes' 1 18 132+3+4+5 18 0 8.24

Sensory Motor Integration-Channel DrawingItem Rating 5-6 7-8

Scale Level* Special S.ecial V**

Chalkboard 1 22 82+3+4+5 20 0 4.52

Straight Line-1 Inch 1 35 142+3+4+5 11 0 2.66

Straight Line- 1 42 14Less than ) Inch 2+3+4+5 4 0 0.28

Curve-1 Inch 1 38 142+3+4+5 8 0 1.51

Curve-Less than 1 Inch 1 40 13

2+3+4+5 6 1 0.02

continue

91) 83

ArkftstrwmCM=i19=111 irpave:26=--*:

TABLE 8 (continued)

ItemSensory Motor Integration- Connecting Dots

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

7-8Special V''

1-Inch Intervals 1 30 132+3+4+5 16 1 2.79

2-Inch Intervals 1 39 132+3+4+5 7 1 C.11

6-Inch Intervals 1 36 142+3+4+5 13 0 3.20

Conceptualization-AssociationItem Rating 5-6 7-8

Scale Level* Special Special 70-,k

3 Pairs 1 39 142+3+4+5 8 0 1.45

6+ Pairsi 1 33 172+3+4+5 12 1 2.33

Conceptualization-Classification-One AttributeItem Rating 5-6 7--

Scale Level* Special Special N2

3 Dimensions-Color 1 35 142+3+4+5 17 4 0.29

3 Dimensions-Size 1 22 112+3+4+5 29 7 1.08

2 Dimensions-Size 1 24 82+3+4+5 21 7 0.09

2 Dimensions-Shape 1 27 72+3+4+5 16 5 0.00

continued)

84

TABLE 8 (continued)

ItemConceptualization-Classification-Two Attributes

RatingScale Level*

5-6l Special

7-8Special V**

1 Iteris 1 10 62+3+4+5 15 7 0.00

6 Items 1 14 72+3+4+5 7 4 0.05

1 Conceetualization-Single ClassificationItem Rating

Scale Level* ,

;276 **

3 Dimensions-2 Classes 1 11 102+3+4+5 12 1 4.17

3 Dimensions-3+ Classes' 1 15 112+3+4+5 9 0 3.76

2 Dimensions-2 Classes 1 17 132+3+45 11 0 5.12

2 Dimensions-3+ Classes1 1 2g 132+3+4+5 0 1.68

Conceptualization-Seriation-SizeItem Rating 5-6 1 7-8

Scale Level* S ecial Special V**

3 Dimensions-3 Objects 1 13 1

2+3+4+5 27 3 .74

3 Dimensions-4+ Objects' 1 22132+3+4+5 17 0.35

2 Dimensions-3 Objects 1 18 152+3+4+5 36 5 1.73

2 Dimensions-44 Objects' 1 15 152+3+4+5 5 3.30

Pictured Objects- 1 19 113 Objects 2+3+4+5 16 5 0.45

Pictured Objgcts- 1

111

4+ Objects 2+3+4+5 15 4 2.20

85

110

TABLE 9

Frequency of Teachers' Responses to Items on Rating Forms for theEvaluation of Individual Children:

Mastery of Task

ItemGross Motor-umping

5-6--Special

7-R:::ecial X ?"

RatingScale Level*

Jumping with Locomotion 18 82+3+1 4+5 25 4 1.43

Jumping from a Height 1 21 102+3+4+5 22 2 3.24

Jumping Over an Obstacle 1 6 62+3+4+5 37 3 8.87

Rhythmical Jumping 1 5 62+3+4+5 38 7 5.51

Gross Motor- BalancingItem Rating T 5-6 7-8

Scale Level* Special Special le**

On the Ground 1 19 62+3+4+5 25 2 1.62

On 4-Inch Side 1 14 62+3+4+5 31 4 1.83

Over Obstacles 1 5 32 +3 +11 +5 32 7 0.57

Tilted,.L 16 3

2+3+4+5 21 7 0.16

On 2-Inch Side 1 0 02+3+4+5 15 1 0.00

*See Appendix B for description of scale levels.**)t2 .05 gt 3.841

86

continue

TABLE 9 (continued)

ItemGross Motor-Hopping

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

7-8Special N,2**

Forward Locomotion

Over a Raised Obstacle

1

2+3+4+5

1

2+3+4+5

1631

537

76

26

0.96

0.18

ItemGross Motor-Throwing

RatingScale Level*

5-6 1 7 -8

Speciall Special X2 **

Stationary Position

Moving Position

1

2+3+4+5

12+3+4+5

1632

1318

710

3

7

0.08

0.09

ItemGross Motor-Rhythmic Movement

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

7-8Special N?"

Stationary Objects

Rotary Objects

1

2+3+4+5

1

2+3+4+5

1216

1

16

20

20

0.69

0.61

ItemAttention-FbcusingRating 5-6

Scale Level* S ecial7-8

Special N2 **

Brief Exposure

Tracking

12+3+4+5

1

2+3+4+5

2725

1931 1

108

126

0.00

3.30

ontinue

87

TABLE 9(continued)

It ?.rn

Attention-Immediate Recogni IcHRating 5- 7-6

Scale Level* Special Special

Slap-Jack

Hand Raising

1

2+3+4+5

1

2+3+4+5

Item

Recall Beading-3-Dimensional Pattern

Recall Hole Pinching-Sequence

Recall Cardboard Box-Location

Recall Forms and Pictures-Changed Location

Reproduction-Forms and Pictures

RatingScale Level*

1

2+3+4+5

1

2+3+4+5

2+3+4+5

12+3+4+5

1

2+3+4+5

Item RatingScale Level*

3 Dimensions-3 Objects

3 Dimensions-4+ 0bjects1

2 Dimensions-3 Objects-Pictures

2 Dimensions-4+ Objectsl-Pictures

2 Dimensions-Printed Forms-3-5 Objects

2 Dimensions- Printed Forms-6+ Objects'

12+3+4+5

12+3+4+5

12+34+5

1

2+3+4+5

1

2+3+4+5

1

2+3+4+5

24 1018 8 0.03

22 1316 4 1.04

Memory5-6

Special7-d

Special

10 423 8

8 914 2

10 529 10

6 419 6

13 517 5

j V"

0.29

4.38

0.05

0.28

0.00

Visual Analysis5-6

Special7-8

Special

2121

29 1215 0

29 1712 0

25 1616 0

22 1917 3

17 1615 3

3+ means 3 or more.4+ means 4 or more.6+ means 6 or more. 88

6.20

3.98

4.62

6.86

4.45

3.77

(continued)

TABLE 9 (continued)

ItemSensory Motor Integration-Body Awareness

RatingScale Level*

5-6 I

Special7-8

Special le**

General 1 37 172+3+4+5 14 1 2,57

--Sensory Motor Integration - Manipulation

Item Rating 5-6 7-8Scale Level* Special Special le**

Beading 1 28 102+3+4+5 13 2 0.43

Pegboard-Simple Pattern 1 18 92+3+4+5 27 6 1.10

Pegboard-Complex Pattern 1 16 92+3+4+5 23 5 1.40

Sensory Motor Integration- ManipulationClothespin an_d Hole Punch

Item Rating 5-6 7-8Scale Level* Special Special N.2**

Clothespins 1 26 62+3+4+5 17 0 2.10

Hole Punch-2 Holes 1 11 11213 +4+5 26 1 11.66

Hole Punch-3+ Holes' 1 5 12P+3+4+5 31 1 22.58

continue

89

TABLE 9 (continued)

ItemSensory Motor Integration-Channel Drawing

7-8Special X.2**

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

Chalkboard 1 21 82+3+4+5 21 0 5.00

Straight Line-1 Inch 1 36 132+3+4+5 9 0 1.74

Straight Line- 1 24 11Less than 1 Inch 2+3+4+5 21 2 2.92

Curve-1 Inch 1 31 132+3+4+5 14 0 3.77

Curve- 1 22 10Less than 1 Inch 2+3+4+5 23 3 2.17

Sensory Motor Integration-Connecting DotsItem Rating 5-6 I 7-8

Scale Level* Special Special 2N.4*

1-Inch Intervals 1 30 112+3+4+5 16 3 0.38

2-Inch Intervals 1 36 102+3+4+5 lo 3 0.08

6-Inch Intervals 1 30 122+3+4+5 15 2 1.07

Conceptualization-AssociationItem Rating 7--

Scale Level* Special Special

14

V"3 pails 1 36

2+3+4+5 10 0 2.26

6+ pairs1 1 3o 162+3+4+5 12 2 1.28

continued

90

TABLE 9 (continued)

ItemConceptualization-Classification-Cie Attribute

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

7-8Special N.2**

3 Dimensions-Color 1 32 162+3+4+5 20 2 3.46

3 Dimensions-Size 1 26 152+3+4+5 25 3 4.51

2 Dimensions-Size 1 19 82+3+4+5 20 5 0.23

2 Dimensions-Shape 1 22 82+3+4+5 15 2 0.69

Conceptualization-Classification-Two AttributesItem Rating 5-6 7-8

ScOe Level* Special Special 10**

4 Items 1 9 14

2+3+4+5 16 8 0.04

6 Items 1 10 82+3+4+5 11 3 0.97

Conceptualization-Single ClassificationItem Rating 5-6 7-8

Scale Level* Special Special 12**

3 Dimensions-2 Classes 1 11 112+3+4+5 12 0 6.73

3 Dimensions-3+ Classesl 1 13 112+3+4+5 12 0 5.91

2 Dimensions-2 Classes 1 19 132+3+4+5 9 0 3.64

2 Dimensions-3+ Classes' 1 21 122+3+4+5 9 1 1.43

continued

91

TABLE 9 (continued)

ItemConceptualization-SeriRt:.on-Size

5-6Special

i 7-8Special

RatingScale Level*

3 Dimensions-3 Objects 1

2+3+4+51724

156 3.87

3 Dimensions-4+ Objectsl 1 21 122+3+4+5 19 10 0.01

2 Dimensions-3 Objects 1 19 112+3+4+5 16 8 0.00

2 Dimensions-4+ Objectsl 1 14 112+3+4+5 20 8 0 78

Pictured - 1 17 15

3 2+3+4+5 16 14 2.76

Pictured Objects- 1 14 14

4+ Objects1 2+3+4+5 19 10 0.32

92

TABP? 10

Frequency of Teachers' Resronses to Items on Rating Forms for theEvaluation of Individual Children:

Ease of Manipulation

Item

Gross Motor-Rh7=movement====Rating

Scale Level*5-

Special 111,111111

20

20

2lc A*

Wire Whisk

Eggbeater

1+2+34+5

1+2+34+5

225

218

0.09

0.00

ItemSensory Motor Integration-Body Awareness

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

7-8Special 1L2**

Tape 1+2+34+5

394

180 0.60

Item

Sensory Motor Integration-Manipulation

5-6----Special

7-8Special' 71L2**

RatingScale Level*

reading

Pegboard

1+2+34+5

i+2+34+5

356

3411

111

132

0.01

0.30

Item

Sensory Motor Integration-ManipulationClothesin and Hole Punch

RatingScale Level*

5-6S.ecial

7-8Soecial X.2**

Clothespins

Hole Punch

4+31+2+34+5

3

1125

6

121

0.00

12.25

'See2Appendix B for description of scale levels.

*.x.05 = 3.841

93

continue

TABLE 10 (continued)

ItemSensory Motor Integration- Channel Drawing

RatingScale Level*

5-6 7-8Siecial Stecial X2**

Chalk

China Marker on Acetate

1+2+34+5

1+2+34+5

383

424

80

140

0.00

0.28

ItemSensory Motor Integration-Connecting Dots

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

7-8Special V**

China Marker on Acetate 1+2+34+5

379

14

0 1.87

ItemConceptualization - Classification -One Attribute

RatingScale Level*

5-6 7-8Stecial S.ecial X.21(*

Corks 1+2+34+5

521

180 0.33

Item

Conceptualization- Sinzle Classification

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

7-8Special V**

3-Dimensional Objects 1+2+34+5

280

130

ItemConceptualization-Seria ion-SizeRating

Scale Level*5-6

Special7-6

Special V**

3-Dimensional Objects-Bolts

Circles

Strips

1+2+34+5

1+2+34+5

1+2+34+5

356

2710

2211

211

190

181

0.63

4.54

3.89

94

1'i

TABLE 11

Frequency of Teachers' Responses to Items on Rating Forms for theEvaluation of Individual Children:Complexity and Quantity of Stimuli

ItemSensory Motor Integration-Manipulation

Beading

Pegboard-Simple Pattern

Pegboard-Complex Pattern

Rating 5-6 7-8Scale Level* __Special Special

1+23

1+23

1+23

392

142

3

354

120

131

121

X2 **

0.01

0.30

0.74

Item

Clothespins

Hole Punch-2 Holes

Hole Punch-3+ Holesl

Sensory Motor Integration-ManipulationClothes in and Hole Punch

Rating 7-8Scale Level* _Special St al

1+23

1+23

1+23

143

0

273

253

90

120

120

*See Appendix B for description of scale levels.con nue

X2 .05 = 3.8141

1 3+ means 3 or more.4+ means 4 or more.

95I

2**

0.22

0.28

TABLE 11 (continued)

ItemSensory Motor Inte ration-Channel Drawing

RatingScale Level*

5-Special

7-8Special X2 **

Chalkboard 1+2 41 8

3 1 0 0.88

Straight Line-1 Inch 1+2A

46 14

3 1 0 0.42

Straight Line- 1+2 43 14Less than 1 Inch 3 3 0 0.08

Curve-1 Inch 1+2 43 14

3 3 0 0.08

Curve-Less than 1 Inch 1+2 43 14

3 3 0 0.08

Sensory Motor Integration_ -Connecting DotsItem Rating 5-6 7-8

Scale Level* Special Special 'X2**

1-Inch Intervals 1+2 45 143 1 0 0.40

2-Inch Intervals 1+2 44 143 2 0 0.00

6-Inch Intr:rvals 1+2 43 143 2 0 0.00

continue

96

TABLE 11 (continued)

Item

3 Dimensions-Color

3 Dimensions-Size

2 Dimensions-Size

2 Dimensions-Shape

Item

Conceptualization-Classification-One AttributeRating 5-6 7-8

Scale Level* Special Special X2 **

511

392

282

280

180

150

111

120

0.31

0.00

0.22

tualization-Sin

3 Dimensions-2 Classes

3 Dimensions-3+ Classesl

2 Dimensions-2 Classes

2 Dimensions-3+ Classesl

97

con inue

0.15

0.30

0.34

0.28

TABLE 11 (continued)

g===

ItemConceptualization-Seriation-Size

RatingScale Level*

5-6Special

7-8Special 10**

3 Dimensions-3 Objects 1+2 39 193 2 2 0.02

3 Dimensions-4+ Objects' 1+2 39 21

3 1 1 0.10

2 Dimensions-3 Objects 1+2 33 193 1 0 0.09

2 Dimensions-4+ Objects' 1+2 31 183 2 1 0.25

Pi. lured Objects-3 Objects 1+2 30 193 3 0 0.54

Pictured Objects-4+ Objects' 1+2 26 8

3 7 1 1.29

98

TABLE 12

Mean Percentages of Ratings on Observation Schedules ofTeacher-Child-Material Interaction: Interest

Gross Motor-JumpingGross Motor-BalancingGross Motor-HoppingGross Motor-ThrowingGross Motor-

Rhythmic MovementAttention-FocusingAttention-

Immediate RecognitionMemoryVisual AnalysisSensory Motor Integration-

Body AwarenessSensory Motor Integration-

ManipulationSensory Motor Integration-

Clothespin and Hole PunchSensory Motor Integration-

Channel DrawingSensory Motor Integration-

Connecting DotsConceptualization-

AssociationConceptualization-

One AttributeConceptualization-

Two AttributesConceptualization-

Single ClassificationCnceptualization-

Seriation-Size

.74

.61

.74

. 79

.79

. 83

.77

.96

.93

.95

.92

.78

.67

.88

. 23. 264

.04

. 26

.25

. 16

.21

.04

. 05

. 05

. 12

. 23

. 27

. 19

Mean

.87

. 86

.90

.91

.88

. 92

. 90

. 68

. 96

.12

.15. 17

.07

. 07

.02

Where no percentage is reported, observers did not record asufficient number of observations for analysis.

991 (1

TABLE 13

Mean Percentages of Ratings on Observation Schedules ofTeacher-Child-MeCirial Interaction:

Sustained Interest-Positive

Test5- Special 7- Spe c ial

Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Gross Motor-Jumping .17 .91 .31 .19Gross Motor-Balancing .14 .21Gross Motor-Hopping .18 .15Gross Motor-Throwing .28 .23Gross Motor-Rhythmic Movemtnt .34 .25

Attention-Focusing .07 .o8Attention-

Immediate RecognitionMemory .37 .20 .24 .22Visual Analysis .19 28Sensory Motor Integration-Body Awareness .23 .34

Sensory Motor Integration-Manipulation .50 .22

Sensory Motor Integration-Clothespin and Hole Punch

Sensory Motor Integration-Channel Drawing .38 .26 .4o .19

Sensory Motor Integration-Connecting Dots .46 .23 .32 .16

Conceptualization-Association .38 .29 .37 .31

Conceptualization-One Attribute .44 .26

Conceptualization-Two Attributes .20 .07 .09 .o6

Conceptualization-Single ClaLisification

Conceptualizaticn-Seriation-Size .38 .14 46 .14

Where no percentage is reported, observers did not record asufficient number of observations for analysis.

100 107

TABLE 14

Mean Percentages of Ratings on Observation Schedules ofTeacher-Child-Material Interaction: Inattention

Test 5-6 Secial 7-8 S.ecialMean S.D. Mean S.D.

Gross Motor-Jumping .06 .17 .02 .04Gross Motor-Balancing .19 .29Gross Motor-Hopping .03 .03Gross Motor-Throwing .11 .24Gross Motor-

Rhythmic Movement .13 .20Attention-Focusing .03 .07Attention-

Immediate RecognitionMemory .14 .20 .01 .01Visual Analysis .03 .05Sensory Motor Integration-Body Awareness .03 .05

Sensory Motor Integration-Manipulation .02 .02

Sensory Motor Integration-Clothespin and Hole Puno,h

Sensory Motor Integration-Channel Drawing .01 .01 .01 .01

Sensory Motor Integration-Connecting Dots .01 .02

Conceptualization-Association .03 .08 .01 .02

Conceptualization-One Attribute .11 .22

Conceptualization-Two Attributes .14 .25 .02 .03

Conceptualization-Single Classification

Conceptualization-Seriation-Size ,07 .16

Where no nercentaae is reported. observers did not record asufficient number of observations for analysis.

168 101

TABLE 15

Frequency of Observers' Responses to Items onObservers' General Rating Form: Attention

TestRating

Scale Level*5-6

Special7-8

Special

Gross Motor-Jumping 1+2 4 1

3 10 5

Gross Motor-Balancing 1+2 4 1

3 2 1

Gross Motor-Hopping 1+2 3 0

3 2 0

Gross Motor-Throwing 1+2 3 1

3 5 2

Gross Motor- 1+2 4 0Rhythmic Movement 3 4 0

Attention-Focusing 1+2 2

3 11 2

Attention- 1+2Immediate Recognition 3

Memory-Beading 1+2 5 33 10 4

Memory-Hole Punch 1+2 1 2

3 3 1

Memory-Box Tops 1+2 3 0

3 8 3

Where no frequencies are reported, observersdid not record behavior for that activity.*See Appendix C for description of scale levels.

102

continued

TABLE 15 (continued)

Test RatingScale Level*

5-6-Special

7-8Special

Memory-Recall and 1+2 4 3Reproduction 3 9 4

Visual Analysis- 1+2 0 1

3 Dimensions 3 4 4

Visual Analysis- 1+2 0 1

2 Dimensions 3 7 3

Visual Analysis-Booklets 1+2 .1 0

3 5 8

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2 0 0Body Awareness 3 3 5

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2 2 0Beading 3 3 2

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2 1 2Pegboard 3 11 4

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2Clothespin and Hole Punch 3

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2 4 2Channel Drawing 3 13 6

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2 1 2Connecting Dots 3 22

co

continue

1 1 103

TABLE 15 (continued)

TestRating

Scale Level*5-6

Special

i7--7-L

Specie.:

Conceptualization- 1+2 5 0Association 3 14 5

Conceptualization- 1+2 1 0

One Attribute-Corks 3 6 1

Conceptualization- 1+2 1 0

One Attribute-Color Forms 3 6 1

Conceptualization- 1+2 3 4Two Attributes 3 6 0

Conceptualization- 1+2Single Classification- 33 Dimensions

Conceptualization- 1+2Single Classification- 32 Dimensions

Conceptualization- 1+2 4 1

Seriation-Size- 3 17 63 Dimensions

Conceptualization- 1+2 2 2

Seriation-Size- 3 15 42 Dimensions

Conceptualization- 1+2 1 2

Seriation-Size-Pictures 3 7 6

104

TABLE 16

Frequency of Observers' Responses to Items onObservers' General Rating Form: Demonstration

TestRating

Scale Levelx5-6

Special7-8

SprJcial

Gross Motor-Jumping 7+2 12 4

3 3 2

Gross Motor-Balancing 1+23

Gross Motor-Hopping 1+2 3 0

3 0 0

Gross Motor-Throwing 1+2 5 1

3 3 2

Gross Motor- 1+2 7 0Rhythmic Movement 3 0 0

Attention-Focusing 14-2 7 2

3 8 2

Attention- 1+2immediate Recognition 3

Memory-Beading 1+2 12 43 3 3

Memory-Hole Punch 1+2 2 1

3 2 2

Memory-Box Tops 1+2 6 0

3 5 3

rFEATITInuedY---Where no frequencies are reported, observersdid not record behavior for that activity.xSee Appendix C for description of scale levels.

105

112

TABLE 16 (continued)

TestRating

Scale Level*5-6

Special7-8

Special

Memory-Recall and 1+2 9 5Reproduction 3 4 2

Visual Analysis- 1+2 3 1

3 Dimensions 3 1 4

Visual Analysis- 1+2 2 1

2 Dimensions 3 6 3

Visual Analysis-Booklets 1+2 2 1

3 4 7

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2 1 3Body Awareness 3 2 2

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2 4 0Beading 3 1 2

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2 4 2Pegboard 3 8 4

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2Clothespin and Hole Punch 3

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2 9 1

Channel Drawing 3 8 7

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2 9 2

Connecting Dots 3 13 5

1o6

continue

11`

TABLE 16 (continued)

TestRating

Scale Level*5-6

Special7-8

Special

Conceptualization- 1+2 10 2

Association 3 9 4

Conceptualization- 1+2 4 0

One Attribute-Corks 3 3.) 1

Conceptualization- 1F2 4 0

One Attribute-Color Forms 3 3 1

Conceptualization- 1+2 6 2

Two Attributes 3 3 3

Conceptualization- 1+2 3 1

Single C1a3sification- 3 0 1

3 Dimensions

Conceptualization- 1+2 0 0

Single Classification- 3 0 1

2 Dimensions

Conceptualization- 1+2 11 1

3eriation -Size- 3 10 63 Dimensions

Conceptualization- 1+2 10 2

Seriation-Size- 3 7 42 Dimensions

Conceptualization- 1+2 2 3

Seriation-Size-Pictures 3 6 F)

1 I 107

TABLE 17

Frequency of Observers' Responses to Items onObservers' General Rating Form: Manipulation

Rating 5-6 7-8Test Scale Level* Special Special

Attention-Focusing 1+23

1

141

3

Attention- 1+2Immediate Recognition 3

Memory-Beading 1+2 2 0

3 13 6

Memory-Hole Punching 1+2 4 1

3 1 2

Meh-,ory-Box Tops 1+2 0 0

3 11 3

Memory-Recall and 1+2 0 0Reproduction 3 13 7

Visual Analysis- 1+2 0 03 Dimensions 3 4 5

Visual Analysis- 1+2 2 02 Dimensions 3 6 4

Visual Analysis-Booklets 1+2 2 1

3 4 7

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2 0 1

Body Awareness 3 3 4

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2 1 0Beading 3 4 2

Sensory Motor Integration- 1+2 8 4Pegboard 3 4 2

Where no frequencies are reported, observersdid not record behavior for that activity.

*See Appendix C for description of scale levels.

108

continued)

TABLE 17 (continued)

TestRating

Scale Level5-6

SpWal7-9

Special

Sensory ,'.rotor Integration- 1+2Clothespin and Hole Punch 3

Sen3ory i:otor Integration- lt2 8 3Chann-.1 Drawing 3 8 r

,

Sc.nsory Eotor Integrations- 1+2 9 3

Connecting Dots 3 14

CenceptualizatIon- 1+2 0 0Association 3 19 5

Conceptualizal.lon- 1+2 0 0One Attriblt-Corks 3 7 1

Conceptuallatiop- 1+2 0 0One A'trIbutc-Color Forms 3 7 1

Conceptualization- 1+2 0 0Two Attribute:; 3 9 r)

Conceptualization - 1+2 0 0Single Classification- 3 3 2

3 Di-lensions

Conceptualization- 1+2 0 0Single Classification- 3 0 1

2 Dimensions

Conceptualization- 1+2 2 0Seria%ion-Size- 3 19 7

3 Dimensions

Conceptualization- 1+2 3 2Serlaticn-Size- 3 lh2 Liremsions

Conceptualization- 1+2Seriation-Size-Pictures 3

11f 109

TABLE 18

Correlations Between. Teachers, Evaluations and Observers, Recordings

It

Title of Activitv

Gross

Motor

1i^ittertion

Memory

Visual

Analysis

Beading

and

Per:board

Sensory

Motor

Intec-ration

IConceptualization

Seriation-Size

.

c4

'CI

LI

CR

-21o n C i-

, I

-3 o cf- c

'73 m ca C:r P -1 ca.

Y °

...,

P P = 0

CR

1--

;

&S'

0' CP

:."*.

,

C) cf-

H.

Z t1

x. m CP o )-'

P cl-

1-). 0

0 0 O-

cl-

'-i Co'

'z cf- 0

--3 o cl- P

+ t, H. 0 0 I- 0 0

0 + 0 CJ

H.

0 0 H. 0 0

Enterest

.51

.05

.37

1-.48

.64

.68

-.14

.59

.47

.78

.88

.87

.72

TABLE 19

Means and Standard Deviations of ScoresObtained by Special and Typical 3- Through 11- Year -Olds on

CREED 3 Test Battery

TestSpecial

N=6Mean S.D.

Typic

Mean

al

S.D

Gross MotorV141

Knox CubesAssociation TestForn CopyingVisual DiscriminationSeauencingColor CubesShell Game

1.673.171.673.17

12.333.672.174.671.33

.941.07.94

3.025.621.801.672.21.94

3.174.504.505.128.174.503.836.001.50

1.072.933.302.486.721.121.57.00.96

TABLE 20

Means and Standard Deviations of ScoresObtained by Special and Typical 5- Through 6-Year-Olds on

CREED 3 Test Battery

TestspecialN=6

TypicalI =6

Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Gross Motor 3.21 1.96 3.96 1.79VM I 5.58 2.16 6.58 1.82Knox Cubes 4.32 3.36 5.83 3.16Association Test 5.82 .80 7.0 2.23Form Copying 7.58 4.86 5.98 3.73Visual Discrimination 5.26 ?.16 6.79 .83Sequencing 4.21 6.38 h.65Target Test 4.18 2.98 6.54 P.48PSS 3.87 2.53 4.67 .43Connecting Dots 2.22 2.29 3.21 ./f0

Gibson Transformations# Correct 5.00 4.43 ll.^1 /1.15

Gibson Transformations# Incorrect 8.63 14.13 24.00

Seriation 3.45 3.39 5.71 7.77

111

TABLE 21

Means and Standard Deviations of Scores Obtainedby Special 7- Through 8-Year-Olds on

CREED 3 Test Battery

TestN=40

Mean S. D.

Gross Motor 5.28 1.82

VMI 8.65 1.30

Knox Cubes 8.15 3.09Association Test 8.52 .77

Form Copying 2.18 2.17

Visual Discrimination 7.05 2.54

Sequencing 10.22 6.16

Target Test 8.4o 1.38

PSS 6.10 2.20

Connecting Dots 5.90 ^.22

Gibson Transformations # CorrectGibson .'ransformations # Incorrect

13.0o10.75

h, 32

7.116

Seriati n 6.80 3.63

1121141

Chapter IV

Discussion and Recommendations

A. Bases for Program Modification

Typically, the discussion section of a project report

presents the results as they confirm or do not confirm the

project proposals. This project, however, is developmental,

and the evaluation to which it was subjected was designed to

provide future direction for that development. As stated

above, the CREED 4 staff presented participating teachers

with a "preltminary proposal" for their modification and

elaboration. While the professional training of the CREED

staff is in research, they are concerned that their work be

of real value to educators; thus, the staff attempted to

develop techniques that would reflect both objective measurement

and educational utility. These techniques were, in fact,

designed for the purposes of modification, not confirmation.

These evaluations will be considered, therefore, from the

standpoint of the modifications that they may generate.

As stated in the preceding chapters, the staff considered

the following variables of greatest importance to both teacher

and child in the development of a program for remediation of

the skill deficits indicated by the CREED 3 Test Battery:

1. interest2. level of mastery3. validity of sequence4. relevance

practicality

In addition, it WAS decided that change in these variables as

113

a function of increasing age of the child was of equal

importance.

Before we consider the analyses, we must rem.nd the

reader that the limitations upon the statistical analyses

of the objective measures as described in Chapter III dictate

that these findings be considered indicative rather than

definitive.

1. Interest

On the basis of the result of both obje:Aive

and subjective evaluations of the materials and activities

on this variable, only minor modifications are required. The

data from the observers and teachers corroborate the findings

of high interest level for most of the tasks. Apparently, the

materials met with both teacher and child approval, Of course,

it is equally apparent that a "Hawthorne effect" is introduced,

i.e., the children are perhaps the recipients of much greater

attention on a one-to-one basis than heretofore. Individual

attention increases the interesr of most children. Indeed,

one teacher state quite candidly that the most valuable aspect

of the program was the opportunity it presented for studying

the child as an individual. Thus, the materials may be of

unusual interest or the interest may be only a fortunate con-

comitant of the individualization of instruction. We believe

strongly that it is a measure of both.

2. Level of mastery

3. of

As stated in the introduction, the development

114

of a sequence of skills of increasing levels of difficulty

presents a number of problems to the designer. Among such

problems the most serious is the fact that the human brain

can devise an incredible number of paths to the same goal

behavior. Thus, when one designs a sequence of difficulty

levels, it is not necessarily, the only sequence appropriate

for a particular chili. Nevertheless, because we are working

with chiluren who have had problems in succeeding with any

sequence of difficulty, we feel somewhat better justified in

devising one for presentation to the teacher, based upon an

amalgamation of developmental theorists, observational findings

and practical considerations. Optimal help would have been

offered the teacher, if several possible sequences were

described through such procedures; in the time period afforded,

we were quite fortunate to devise one.

The Rating Scale variables that should provide us with

information about the reality of the sequential levels

designed are Amount of Demonstration and Level of Mastery.

If the ratings indicated that repeated demonstrations were

necessary in order to communicate the elements of the task,

and that many repeated trials were necessary for completion

of the task, we would consider that task at a relatively high

level of difficulty. On the other hand, one demonstration and

one trial would indicate a relatively simple task.

There seemed to be four patterns of responses to the

materials. In the first, on about 20% of the activities.

115I it)

the older group found the task easier to accomplish than the

younger group. There was, then, some indication that the task

reflected differentiation based upon increases 11 age,

In the second, in about 10% of the total, both age groups

mastered the tasks. Thus, these tasks failed to differentiate

between these age groups. The indications in this instance

are that the task was set at a level of difficulty appropriate

to a child at a young age. Because we did not obtain a

sufficiently large number of 3- through 4-year-olds for the

project, we could not determine if, indeed, the level of

differentiation was between the 3- through 4-year-olds and

the 5- through 6-year-olds.

The third pattern reflected a very high level of

difficulty so that all children failed to master the task,

regardless of age. It is appropriately set at a higher age

level.

The fourth pattern is one in which there is a similar

distribution of children within the 5- through 6-year-old

group and the 7- through 8-year-old group who fail and succeed

at the task. Such a result may indicate the presence of

several significant factors, including the possibility that

the task is a transitional one that is mastered throughout the

5- through 8-year age range. Quite possibly, these tasks would

have been mastered by the greater majority of 9- through 10-year-

olds.

The implications of these results are clear: where all 5-

through 8-year-olds failed tasks, we must interpolate tasks at

116A.8'81

a less complex level. Where all mastered the tasks, the

ceiling level of difficulty for task accomplishment must

be increased. Where the task accomplishment was distributed

similarly across both age groups, a wider range of tasks must

be structured so that specific points of differentiation

within this four-year age range may be determined.

These modifications are strongly recommended on the

basis of objective measures and the interpretation of Teachers'

Comments. Optimal utilization of these data would dictate that

we expand the structure of skills in the current program.

4. Relevance

5. Practicality

The teachers' ratings of the materials and

their comments indicated that they perceive the need for the

more definitive bridging of tasks through the specific

requirements of academic subjects. For example, there was

the frequent suggestion that the Visual Analysis and Sensory-

Motor Integration tasks be extended to require introduction to

the alphabet, to graphemes and to words. Thus, while the

teachers accept most readily the need to aid children in the

mastery of the underlying components of pre-academic skills,

they recommend strongly that the program include among its

objectives the articulation of the structures of pre-academic

skills with the structures of academi,e) skills, such as reading

and writing.

There is in such a recommendation the recognition of the

need for continuity in programs of skill development from the

earliest phases to culminating tasks of great complexity, such

117id'

as reading. There is also the comprehension of the inter-

dependence of the skill areas in tasks at high levels of

complexity.

In the majority, the materials were rated well on

practicality; there was, however, great consistency in the

negative cases. Where there were negative comments, the

teachers contributed very precise recommendations for

modification of the task materials or suggested materials

for development of the skill in question. Participating

teachers provided ideas for the modification of current

materials as well as ideas for new materials in order to

increase the usefulness of the program in the classroom.

6. Summary

It should have become evident from the above

discussion that these variables cannot be considered in

isolation; they are highly interpendent. In order to

make any worthwhile change in a particular activity in the

program, it will be necessary for the CREED staff to consider

the activity in light of all variables upon which it has been

measured. There is a wealth of information available for

decision-making, from many sources. for all tasks; the decisions

will thus reflect an attempt to effect a balance among these

sources. The CREED 4 staff believes that only through such

processes can we make heuristic decisions in the development

of curriculum.

P. implications from the Processes of Evaluation

The tasks in the CREED 4 program were subjected to several

118

types of evaluation, including both ratings and narrative

reports from participating teachers. Such a comprehensive

design was dictated by the type of information being sought,

viz., the extent of differentiation by age of discrete

program tasks.

While the teachers' narrative reports could be expected

to indicate age differences, realistic modification cannot

be based upon individual descriptions. There must be some

indication of need on the part of a large proportion of

those involved. It is the belief of the CREED 4 staff that

objective measurement is the most acceptable way to obtain a

stable description of such need. This measurement provides

strong justification for changes effected on the basis of the

subjective recommendations in the narrative reports.

As discussed above, the analyses of the ratings obtained

from the teachers clearly indicated the direction of

modification. The Teachers' Comments were a confirmation of

the ratings. It must be asserted, however, that CREED 4

personnel view both sources as absolutely essential to the

appropriate evaluation of a program. The Teachers' Comments

provided not only confirmation, but elaboration of the dynamic

processes within the instructional situation. To interpret

one without the presence of the other provided only a fraction

of the information necessary for the development of a program.

C. Teachers as Obiective Evaluators

Because we were treating so complex an aspect of curriculum

desigt" it was decided by the staff that data from neutral

119

observers would contribute greater objectivity to the sources

of information. The analyses of the observation schedules

obtained from the observers produced results of some itterest.

Apparently, the evaluations produced by the sample of teachers

in this project were highly related to the recordings of the

neutral observers of the classroom situation. The implications

are, that for such a sample of teachers, there is the firm

possibility that we can expect a realistic evaluation of the

program on the basis of their ratings alone. For researchers,

this is a most provocative statement. While educators may

consider it naive, it will doubtless cause some disturbance on

the part of sceptical educational researchers. Admittedly, the

results ave open to other interpretations, but the one we pose

here can not be lightly disregarded. It will certainly be

among the considerations of the CREED staff when future

procedures of evaluation are proposed.

D. The Place of CREED 4 in the Education of tl e Young Deaf Child

We have described the CREED 4 program in thiJ report as

sequences of activities to aid children in raving from one level

of functioning in a skill to another. Our efforts have been

directed toward helping teachers meet the neAs of children who

demonstrate learning problems in the five skill areas of gross

motor coordination, sensory-motor integration, attention and

memory, visual analysis and conceptualization. At this point

in the project we have directed our efforts toward the

development of the content of such remediation processes. We

believe that we have provided the teacher with elements from

120 lxt

which we may select those appropriate to the problems

demonstrated by an individual child; in other words, we have

provided input for the instructional process. We have not, at

this time, considered the process through which this input is

to be communicated. We avoided such consideration because it

was not within the scope of the task set before us. We feel

compelled to inform the reader, however, that while we have not

considered it here, the CREED 4 staff is very much concerned

about the environment in which the child is expected to accomplish

the tasks in the CREED 4 program. We are concerned with the

inter-personal dynamics within which the tasks are communicated,

and the expectations for their accomplishment on the part of both

the teacher and the child. These are aspects of learning that

cannot be avoided in the development of a program. We have moved

ahead without direct attention to them only because we viewed the

sequence of tasks at this point as possible of implementation

within any environment. In other words, we believe that it is

possible to implement the elements in this program so that they

are appropriate to both the individual needs of the child and

the individual sty]es of the teacher. As educational researchers

working in curriculum development, however, we are very much aware

of the current movement in general education for significant

change in the learner's environment (Silberman, 1970;

Featherstone, 1969). The process of re-evaluation is appearing

in the literature in special education as well (Lilly, 1970). It

is the hope of the CREED 4 staff that such re-evaluation on the

part of educators of the deaf will be reflected in future

developments in the education of the deaf child.

In 121

REFERENCES

Athey, I. J. & Rubadeau, D. 0. (Eds.). Educational implicationsof Piaget's theory. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn-Blaisdell, 1970.

Barry, H. The young aphasic child: Education and training.Washington, D. C.: Alexander Graham Bell Assoc. for theDeaf, 1961.

Barsch, R. H. Enriching perception and cognition techniques forteachers. Vol, 2 of a Perceptual -Motor Curriculum.Seattle, Wash.: Special. Child Publications, 1968.

Blank, M. & Solomon, F. A tutorial language program to developabstract thinking in socially disadvantaged preschoolchildren. Child Development, 1968, 39(2), 379-389.

Bloom, B. S. Learning for mastery. In Evaluation CommentBulletin of the U.C.L.A. Center for the Study of InstructionalPrograms, May 1968.

Carroll, J. A model of school learning. Teachers College Record,1963, 44, 723-33.

Elklind, D. & Flavell, J. II. (Eds.). Studies in cognitivedevelopment: Essays in honor of Jean Piaget. New York:Oxford Univ. Press, 1969.

Featherstone, J. The primary school revolution in Britain.Reprint of articles from The New Republic, August 10,Sept. 2, Sept. 9, 1967. New York: Pitman, 1969.

Featherstone, J. An English lesson for America. Now York Timesbook review, Sept. 20, 1970, 10-16.

Gagne, R. M. The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart,& WinstonT-79-65.

Gagne, R. M. Contributions of learning to human development.Psychological Review, 1968, 75, 177-91.

Kephart, N. C. Learning disability: An educational adventure.West Lafayette, Ind.: Kappa Delta Pi Press, 19687.

Lilly, M. S. Special education: A teapot in a tempest.Exceptional Children, 1970, 37, 43-49.

122

REFERENCES (Cont.)

Lindvall, C. M. & Cox, R. C. Tho role of evaluation in programsfor individualized instruction. In Tyler, R. W. (Ed.),Educational evaluation:Newrolesnewmeans. Chicago:N.S.S.E., bdth Yearbook,--N59:71rTWTT--P157 156-88.

Sharp, E. Thinking is child's play. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1969.

Shulman, L. S. Psychology and mathematics education. In Begle,E. G. (Ed.), Mathematics education. Chicago: N.S.S.E.,69th Yearbook, Part I, 1970. Pp. 23-71.

Silberman, C. E. Crisis in the classroom: The remaking ofAmerican education. New York: Random House, 1970.

Valett, R. E. The remediation of learning disabilities:A handbookFrjpsTTOTT7OTEiFfresource programs. Palo Alto,Calif.: Fearon Publishers, 1967.

Van Witsen, B. Perceptual training activities handbook.Teachers College series in special education. New York:Teachers College Press, 1967.

123

APPENDIX A

List of Activities

LIST OF ACTIVITIES

GROSS MOTOR

Jumping

A. Jumping with Locomotion

B. Jumping from a Height

C. Jumping over an Obstacle

D. Rhythmical Jumping

Hopping

A. Forward Locomotion

B. Over a Raised Obstacle

Balancing (Balance Beam)

A. On the Ground

B. On 4-Inch Side

C. Over Obstacles

D. Tilted

E. On 2-Inch Side

Throwing

A. Stationary Position

B. Moving Position

Rhythmic Movement

A. Stationary Objects

B. Rotary Objects

ATTENTION

Focusing

A. Brief Exposure

B. Tracking

Immediate Recognition

A. Slap-Jack

B. Hand Raising

MEMORY

A. Recall Beading-3-Dimensional Pattern

B. Recall Hole Punch-Sequence

C. Recall Cardboard Box-Location

D-E. Recall Forms and Pictures-Changed Location

F-G. Reproduction-Forms and Pictures

VISUAL ANALYSIS

A. 3 Dimensions 3 Objects

B. 3 Dimensions-4 or More Objects

C. 2 Dimensions (Pictures) -3 Objects

D. 2 Dimensions (Pictures) -Z4 or More Objects

E. 2 Dimensions (Printed Forms) -3-5 Objects

F. 2 Dimensions (Printed Forms) -6 or More Objects

1" 125

SENSORY MOTOR INTEGRATION

Body Awareness-General

Manipulation-Beading and Pegboard

A. Beading

B. Pegboard (Simple Pattern)

C. Pegboard (Complex Pattern)

Manipulation-Clothespin and Hole Punch

A. Clothespin

B. Hole Punch-2 Holes

C. Hole Punch-3 or More Holes

Channel Drawing

A. Chalkboard

B. Straight Line-1-Inch

C. Straight Line -Lees than 1-Inch

D. Curve- 1-Inch

E. Curve-Less than 1-Inch

Connecting Dots

A. 1-Inch Intervals

B. 2-Inch Intervals

C. 6-Inch Intervals

CONCEPTUALIZATION

Association

A. 3 Pairs

B. 6 or More Pairs

CONCEPTUALIZATION (continued)

Classification-One Attribute

A. 3 Dimensions-Color

B. 3 Dimensions-Size

C. 2 Dimensions-Size

D. 2 Dimensions-Shape

Classification-Two Attributes

A. 4 Items

B. 6 Items

Single Classification

A. 3 Dimensions-2 Classes

B. 3 Dimensions-3 or More Classes

C. 2 Dimensions-2 Classes

D. 2 Dimensions-3 or More Classes

Seriation-Size

A. 3 Dimensions-3 Objects

B. 3 Dimensions-4 or More Objects

C. 2 Dimensions-3 Objects

D. 2 Dimensions-4 or More Objects

E. Pictured Objects-3 Objects

F. Pictured Objects-4 or More Objects

Seri ation- Number

A. Beading-3 Beads

B. Beading-4 or More Beads

C. Color Form-3 Forms

D. Color Foria-4 or Mc re Forms

E. Picture -3 Pictures

F. Picture-4 or More Pictures

126

APPENDIX B

Teacher Evaluation Forms

laRlatit

SCORING:

EVALUATION OF CHILD SPIT --m

A. BeadingB. Pegboard (Simple pattern)

C. Pegboard (Complex pattern)

1 . always watches2 . watches alms t all of the time

3 = watches about half time4 = rarely watches5 = pays no attention

II. Amount of Demonstrating Required: A. Beading

B. Pegboard (simple pattern)

C. Pegboard (complex pattern)

SCORING:

III. Mastery of Tasks:

SCORING:

Iv.

1 = got idea immediately2 = needed 2 repetitions3 = needed 3 repetitions4 . wore than 3 repeats - understood5 = more than 3 repeats - did not understand

A. Beading

B. Pegboard (simple pattern)

C. Pegboard (complex pattern)

1 . completed on first trial2 = needed 2 trials to complete3 a. needed 3 trials to complete4 = more than 3 trials but completed5 = more than 3 trials - did not complete

Evaluation of Sustained Interest (when child works without direction)A. Beading

B. Pegboard (simple pattern)

C. Pegboard (complex pattern)

SCORING: 1 0 constantly works on task2 = works most of the time3 u works about half the time4 0 works very little5 does not work on task

V. Ease of Manipulation: A. BeadingB. Pegboard

SCORING: 1 0 no difficulty in manipulation2 s little difficulty in manipulation3 u some difficulty4 = very difficult but succeeds5 0 unable to manipulate

VI. Reaction to Quantity of Stimuli: A.

B.

C.

SCORING:

BeadingPegboard (simple pattern)Pegboard (complex pattern)

1 not disturbed/distracted by number of stimuli2 0 some disturbance/distraction by number of stimuli3 a very disturbed/distracted by ,cumber of stimuli

128

CREED EVALUATION FORM

NAME

OFSTUDENT

IA

IB_ _

IC

ILA

IIB

IIC

I IIAI 1.

IIIB

IIIC

IVA

IVB

IVC

VA

VBA

VIA

_ ....

VIB

VIC

129

SENSORY MOTORINTEGRATION

MANIPULATION

TEACHER EVALUATION OF MATERIALS

A. Difficulty in Communicating Task Instructions:

BEADING

Very easy to explain Often difficult toexplain

Not able toget idea across

In:CBOAED (Simple Pattern)

Very easy to explain Often difficult to Not able toexplain get idea across

PEGITAPD (Ccftillcx Pattern)

Very easy to explain Often difficult to Not able toexplain get idea across

B. Relevance to Class Objectives:

IHighly related toclass obj.

C. Level of Interest to Teacher:

Very Interesting

Some relation toclass obj.

No relation toclass. obj.

Interesting Lacking inInterest

D. Reaction to Amount of Items Included in Section:

Too many repetitive Sufficient items

items included are includedNeeds more items

E. Amount of Time Required to Carry out the Entire Sequence:

Less than 5 5 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 More than

minutes minutes minutes minutes hour

F. Ease of Manipulating Materials by Teacher:

Very easy Somewhat difficult

G. Maintaining Materials:

Very hard

SKr -m

Materials remainedintact throughout

Scene items misplaced

or damaged

Most items misplacedor damaged

Cr'H. St.3rage:

[No difficulty in

storing

Some difficultyin storing

130

Very difficult]to store

AlrENDIX C

Observer Evaluation Forms

1"N

CREED 4

OBSERVER RATINO SCALES

CHILD ACTIVITY WITH TEACHER

A. Child does not attend .o teacherB. Child watches teacher (includes watching hands, etc.

while she demonstrates; passive)C. Child "talks to teacher (active interaction; not

just passive repeats of teacher's words; includesnon-verbal actions)

CHILD ACTIVITY WITH MATERIALS

1. Child does rot attend to materials2. Child looks at materials3. Child manipulates materials (includes touching for

play as well as execution of task)

TEACHER ACTIVITY

0. Teacher attends to others and other things (anythingextraneous to task)

W. Teacher watches childD. Teacher demonstrates materials

132

!HI

L4

Student's Name

Materials

Date

OBSERVER SCORING SHEET

Class

School

Min

utes

1

Age

Observer

CREED 4

Initial Presentation /--7

Subsequent Presentation /77

In Classroom /77 Other

A5

67

89

10

11

12

0 -

21

1

4 - 6

I.

6 - 8

..

_

_

___

-

,

1

I.

Attention:

II.

Amount

III.

Ease

(1)

(2)

(31

Comments

wtches about

always watches

1Mal' time

pays no

attention

of Demonstrating by Teacher: (beyond first

presentation)

1 only initial

needed some

demonstration

repetitions

needed many

repetitions

of Manipulation:

no difficulty inl

manipulation

fsome difficulty

very difficult to

manipulate